
Class_SK^U^ 



. V<^-V c 



HiKSl-:NTHl) liY 



THE 

DESECRATION 

AND 

PROFANATION 

OF THE 

PENNSYLVANIA CAPITOL, 



WILLIAM J. CAMPBELL 

1623 Chestnut Street 

PHILADELPHIA 









X 






"Cursed he he that maketh the blind to zvan- 
der out of the way," — Dent. 27: 18. 



"Yea, the time cometh, that whosoever kill- 
eth you will think that he doeth God service." 

— John 16: 2. 



"If, ivhen ye do well, and suffer for it, ye 
take it patiently, this is acceptable with God" 

— I Peter 2 : 20. 



"And be not afraid of their terror, neither 
be troubled." — I Peter 3: 14. 



Pennypacker's Mills, 

Oct. 4, 191 1. 
To the People of Pennsyhmnia: 

In the city of Antwerp, at one time the 
leading municipahty of the world, within a few 
hundred yards of the banks of the Scheldt, 
stands one of the most beautiful and imposing 
of the cathedrals of Europe. From every civi- 
lized country men and women interested in the 
study of history, of theology and of art come 
to view its proportions, to admire its architec- 
ture and to indicate their veneration for its 
associations. A spire rising from the roof 
bears heavenward the symbol of suffering hu- 
manity. Within its portals hang Ruben's 
"Descent from the Cross," the masterpiece of 
this artist in color, and Leonardo da Vinci's 
painting of the "Head of Christ." Without, 
against the very walls, the nasty, dirty, vulgar 
Belgians of the present day have erected their 
urinals and cloaca in full view of every visitor 
to the sacred edifice. 

We in Pennsylvania have recently been giv- 
ing a like exhibition of ourselves. We have 
5 



treated our Capitol after the same fashion, 
with a similar lack of decency and good sense. 
For four years I have waited patiently until 
the Courts should fini3h their consideration of 
the cases brought before them. It was the 
only proper course to pursue. It would have 
been better for the material interests and the 
reputation of the Commonwealth if others had 
acted with the same sense of propriety. I now 
propose to speak. It is my duty. Nor do I 
intend to assume any affectation of modesty. 
Between you and me in this matter it shall 
be an effort only to reach the truth, and all 
other motives and impulses shall be disregard- 
ed. I do not ask the acceptance of any state- 
ment herein made as a fact unless it is verified 
or be capable of verification from the record, 
and I do not ask you to be influenced by any 
of my reasoning unless it appeals to your judg- 
ment, but I intend that those both now and 
hereafter who care to be informed, and to be 
correct in their conclusions, shall have the bene- 
fit of such information as I possess with regard 
to men and events and such intelligence as I 
am able to bring to the subject. I claim now 
the right to be heard. 

Without any request or suggestion of mine 
you elected me to the Governorship of Penn- 
sylvania by the largest vote ever given to one 
6 



presented for that office either before or since. 
I am entirely conscious of the fact, and you 
will remember, that my term was filled 
with constructive work accomplished for the 
benefit of the Commonwealth, and that the 
standards of political conduct were maintained 
at so high a plane that the President of the 
United States held forth Pennsylvania as an 
example for all of the States to follow. Gov- 
ernor Robert E. Pattison at the close of an 
attempt to have the State apportioned into 
senatorial and representative districts in com- 
pliance with the requirements of the Con- 
stitution, said in 1883 in a message: "I have 
exhausted all my powers to that end without 
avail, and confess the futility of my efforts." 
The State was so apportioned in 1906, the 
first time this mandate had been obeyed in 
thirty-two years. Mr. Roosevelt received 
much credit for the policy of conserving the 
forests and the waters. With respect to the 
waters, this policy had its origin when in re- 
sponse to a message from me the Legislature 
of Pennsylvania, April 13, 1905, took away 
from corf>orations the power to appropriate 
"the streams, rivers and waters," and during 
my term the forest lands of the State were 
doubled. Charles E. Hughes received great 
applause over the country and was appointed 

7 



to the Supreme Court of the United States 
because he endeavored to bring about in New 
York the passage of the legislation which had 
been secured here. Unlike Mr. Hughes, when 
I was tendered the nomination to the Supreme 
Court of the State I did not, looking to my 
own comfort, abandon the Governorship to 
which you had called me. My successor did 
me the honor to conduct the affairs of his ad- 
ministration with the officials he found in 
charge of the departments at Harrisburg. The 
gentleman appointed to the United States 
Senate became there the recognized author- 
ity upon questions of law, and now sits at 
the head of the Cabinet. Pittsburgh became 
a greater city. Valley Forge became a source 
of instruction to the people of the nation, and 
on the outer line of intrenchments was set the 
bronze statue of Anthony Wayne. The move- 
ment for good roads was begun and three hun- 
dred miles in stone were constructed. Cor- 
porations were not permitted to be organized 
tmless they had a capital stock of at least 
$5,000. By the act of May 8, 1905, the State 
began the policy of aiding, deepening and im- 
proving the channel of the Delaware river by 
appropriating $375,000 to Philadelphia for this 
purpose. Every newspaper now prints on its 
editorial page the names of those responsible 



for its management. The constabulaiy was 
created and organized upon such a basis that 
it has met approval everywhere, and moreover 
has maintained the peace as never before. The 
most efficient department of health in the Uni- 
ted States was established, and the Capitol was 
both begun and completed. Therefore it is 
that I demand that you listen, giving such 
support to the utterance as you may find it 
to deserve. 

When I went to Harrisburg in obedience to 
your call in 1903, I found the arrangements 
for the transaction of the business of the State, 
due to the fact that the old Capitol had been 
destroyed by fire some years before, in the 
most unsatisfactory condition. Residences and 
other buildings in different parts of the town 
as they could be found had been rented at con- 
siderable expense and adapted. Most of the 
departments were housed in what was called 
the old shoe building, a brick structure stand- 
ing in a manufacturing neighborhood within 
a few yards of and running alongside of the 
main line of the Pennsylvania Railroad. Here 
among others were the records of the Interior 
Department, with its evidences of the titles to 
the lands throughout the State. They could 
not be cared for, and every day and every 
night they ran the risk of destruction by fire. 
9 



Every time the fire bell rang I expected to hear 
that the old shoe building with its contents 
had at last succumbed. If you expected me 
to be content that this condition should con- 
tinue, shifting the responsibility for providing 
a remedy over to some successor, or if you 
expected me to participate in the erection of a 
cheap and unworthy public building out of 
keeping with the importance of the Common- 
wealth, you had made a mistake in the selec- 
tion of your Governor. I would not have 
done either of those things then, and I would 
not do either of them now. 

A Commission had been appointed for the 
erection of a new Capitol, an architect had 
been selected, and a contract had been made 
covering the expenditure of $4,000,000.00. A 
commonly expressed opinion upon the street 
was that before the building should be com- 
pleted twenty-five years in time and twenty- 
five millions of dollars would be required. This 
opinion received support from the experience 
of other States in erecting capitols, and of 
Philadelphia in erecting her City Hall. Al- 
though the Commission had been appointed by 
m)^ predecessor, I assumed responsibility for 
them — that is to say, it was within my power 
as Governor to have removed them all, at least 
with one exception, and to have appointed 



others in their stead. Like every other Com- 
mission and appointive body, it was subject 
to the control of the Governor. What they did, 
therefore, was done under my authority and 
with my assent. There was much futile dis- 
cussion at one time as to why the Commission 
permitted the Board of Public Grounds and 
Buildings to do anything in the way of alter- 
ation. How could the Commission have helped 
it, if the Governor chose to exert his author- 
ity? There were also many idle editorials 
written to tell you that it had been expected 
that the structure as it has been completed 
would cost but $4,000,000. Whoever made 
that statement to you told an untruth. The 
contract and the specifications were both print- 
ed in full, and anybody concerned to know 
could have seen exactly what the $4,000,000 
were to secure. That contract made provision 
for the bare building alone and none for light- 
ing, for the heat regulation, the panelings on 
the walls, the fire-places and mantel-pieces, the 
decorations in the rooms of the Senate and 
House, the decorations of the dome, the decor- 
ations in the other rooms, the paintings in the 
corridors, the twenty-eight subjects to be 
painted by Abbey, and none for the furniture. 
If nothing more had been done, the Governor, 
members of the Legislature and officials would 



have had to trudge through the mud to the 
building, since no provision had been made 
for approaches or pavement. When they 
reached it they could have done no work — they 
could not even have sat down. 

The Board of Public Grounds and Build- 
ings consisted of the Governor, the State Trea- 
surer and the Auditor General. It is a vicious 
arrangement, since the Governor, who is vested 
by the Constitution with supreme executive 
power, is required to sit upon terms of equality 
of action with two other officials who may at 
any time outvote him. The Governor ought 
to be a member of no board performing duties 
of the State. However, the system had been 
devised by the wisdom of legislators, had been 
accepted by my predecessors and had long 
continued. The act of March 26, 1895, directs 
that this Board "shall have entire control and 
supervision of the public grounds and build- 
ings . . . and all the repairs, alterations 
and improvements made and all work done 
or expenses incurred in and about such 
grounds and buildings, including the furnish- 
ing and refurnishing the same," and they "are 
authorized to enter into contracts for . 
furniture, . . . repairs, alterations or im- 
provements." The power thus given to the 
Board is broad and absolute in its scope and 



far beyond that of the Building Commission, 
which was limited and restricted to a specific 
purpose. Its power was not confined to small 
buildings or large buildings, but extended to 
all, together with the public grounds, and in- 
cluded the authority to alter and improve. To 
carry into effect its powers, appropriations 
were made to it at each session of the Legis- 
lature in the following terms : "The State 
Treasurer is hereby authorized and directed 
to pay out of any moneys not otherwise ap- 
propriated . . . such sums as may be re- 
quired by contracts made in pursuance of law 
which shall be done only on the 
written orders of the Board of Commissioners 
of Public Grounds and Buildings." 

This system is likewise open to criticism. 
In response to a message from me the open 
end of the sack was closed, with respect to 
expenditure for bridges, by the act of February 
15, 1906. But the system had been devised 
by Governor Pattison, the government had 
been conducted in accordance with it for nearly 
twenty years, numerous structures had been 
erected and no one had arisen anywhere to 
object. The general appropriation bill, ap- 
proved July 18, 1 90 1, contained, however, this 
provision : "Provided that expenditures al- 
lowed under this section shall not be so con- 
13 



strued as to authorize the Commissioners of 
Public Grounds and Buildings to complete the 
present Capitol building," and the proviso was 
retained in the appropriation bills of 1903 and 
1905. The effect of this proviso is difficult 
to determine. No attempt is made to repeal 
the power of the Board, and in fact such a 
result could not be accomplished by an appro- 
priation bill. The power to improve, alter, 
repair and furnish is left as it was under the 
previous legislation, and an appropriation for 
these purposes is made in the same section, 
but an appropriation to "complete"' the Capitol 
is withheld. My interpretation of the lan- 
guage was and is that the Legislature, know- 
ing of the contract for the erection of the 
building and having made provision for the 
sums required by it, intended to prevent the 
Board of Public Grounds and Buildings from 
spending moneys for the completion of that 
contract and in relief of the Building Com- 
mission. Such a provision would be wise, 
and this is an interpretation entirely consistent 
with a retention of the general power of the 
Board. As in much of our legislation, it is 
necessary to grope the way amid conflicting 
statutes to ascertain the legislative intent, but 
the testimony given for the defence in the 
various trials that I was of the opinion, and 
14 



gave expression to it, that the Board had the 
power to alter, improve, repair, furnish and 
equip the Capitol building was correct. I ac- 
cept that responsibility. 

The members of the Board were aware of 
the fact that the next session of the Legisla- 
ture would occur in January of 1905, and that 
it was expected of them that the Capitol should 
be in readiness. If they had failed to meet 
the responsibility and had sought to excuse 
themselves upon the ground of want of au- 
thority, those who have been so ready to berate 
them for achievement would have been equally 
earnest in charging incompetence. But what 
is of far more consequence, they would have 
neglected a duty imposed upon them by the 
law. Like men, they accepted the responsi- 
bility. Even if they had been disposed to lie 
down and shirk, the necessity of providing ac- 
commodations for five new departments cre- 
ated after the making of the contract by the 
Building Commission, to wit. Fisheries, Mines, 
Health, Highways and Constabulary, would 
have compelled them to modify and magnify 
the plans for the building. That the Legisla- 
ture made no other provision for these depart- 
ments and depended upon the Board to ar- 
range for them, is convincing proof that my 
interpretation of the legislation is correct. 
15 



Thus Section 5 of the act of April 3, 1903, 
creating the Department of Fisheries, directed : 
"The Fisheries Commission shall have an of- 
fice in the State Capitol, and it shall be the 
duty of the Board of Commissioners of Public 
Grounds and Buildings to provide from time 
to time the necessary rooms, furniture, appar- 
atus and supplies." Section 2 of the act of 
April 15, 1903, creating the Department of 
Highways, directed: "The State Highway 
Department shall be provided with suitable 
rooms in the State buildings at Harrisburg, 
and its offices shall be open at all reasonable 
times for the transaction of public business." 
Section 2 of the act of May 5, 1905, creating 
the Department of State Police directed : "The 
Superintendent of State Police shall be pro- 
vided by the Board of Public Grounds and 
Buildings with suitable offices at the Capitol 
in Harrisburg" ; and the other two depart- 
ments were simply left to the care of the Board 
by the Legislature without specific directions. 
How the Board was to obey this legislation 
without doing constructive work in the Capi- 
tol the critics have been too careless even to 
consider. 

The erection, ornamention and equipment 
of the Capitol was by no means a simple and 
easy task. It was the most elaborate and 
16 



complicated constructive work ever undertaken 
by the State. In the nature of things the 
men in charge of it were unprepared by special 
training, and the resources provided for ordi- 
nary and routine occasions were inadequate. 
Even the most skilled engineers when called 
upon to erect a bridge over the St. Lawrence 
at Quebec or to dig a canal across the Isthmus 
of Panama cannot rely upon formulas, but 
have to feel their way. Reasonable persons 
would expect many mistakes and imperfec- 
tions both of method and material, and if they 
be honest, will admit that expectation. Most 
of the efforts to erect capitols in this country 
have resulted in failures both in design and 
construction. 

The equipment involved much more than 
that which has been ignorantly designated as 
furniture. For over half a century the records 
of the government at Harrisburg had been 
gradually stolen by literary thieves. To-day 
not an autograph sale occurs in New York 
which does not contain more or less of original 
papers which were once a part of the archives 
of Pennsylvania. Every collector of experi- 
ence is familiar with the fact. The Board with 
proper foresight determined to take due care 
for the future, and in every room in the vast 
building they placed metallic cases in which 
17 



could be preserved safe from abstraction, mutil- 
ation and fire, the records of the departments. 
These metallic cases are not furniture. They 
are the tools of the workmen, the engines of 
the power house, the looms of the mill, the 
wagons of the farmer, the gold foil of the 
dentist. The task confronting the builders 
was not that of keeping a set of books such as 
could meet the scrutiny and approval of the 
Audit Company of New York, or that of mak- 
ing contracts which would baffle the technical 
skill of a Quarter Sessions lawyer. It was 
nothing so small, limited and incidental. 
What they were called upon to do was to erect 
and adorn a building ample for the needs of 
the work of a Commonwealth of eight millions 
of people, in so substantial a manner as to meet 
the requirements of architectural strength and 
with such grace as to satisfy the cultivated 
tastes of instructed artists. 

The financial relation of the Board of Pub- 
lic Grounds and Buildings toward the Capitol 
was entirely different from that of the Build- 
ing Commission. The latter could only use 
$4,000,000, the former were only limited by 
the balance in the Treasury of the State. 
While the members of the Board well knew 
that the State was strong enough and had 
sufficient resources to justify the erection of 
iS 



a building in every way worthy and credit- 
able, and it may be said that I for one would 
have assented to nothing less, they likewise 
felt and appreciated the importance of using 
all feasible means to keep the expenses within 
reasonable limits. You have never been per- 
mitted to be informed as to the pains which 
were taken by the Board in this respect. All 
that the existing legislation required was that 
the bills should be certified by the Superin- 
tendent and should be approved by the Board. 
At the outset they determined that the work 
should be done under the supervision of a 
competent architect, and instead of selecting 
some favorite of their own, they, in order 
that there might be unity of purpose and de- 
sign, placed it in charge of the architect who 
had been chosen by the Building Commission 
and had planned the building. They com- 
pelled him to reduce his commissions from five 
per cent., the usual compensation allowed to 
architects, to four per cent., much to his dis- 
satisfaction. They required him to prepare 
plans for the entire work, and adopted the 
resolution offered by me April 12, 1904, that 
after full advertising the contract should be 
awarded as an entirety to the lowest respon- 
sible bidder. It was pointed out to me later 
that this plan was not in accord with the pvo- 
19 



visions of the act of 1895, which required 
schedule advertising and purchases, which fact 
I had to concede, and the resolution was re- 
considered. It is only another illustration of 
the fact, so often made manifest, that restric- 
tions born of lack of confidence, and imposed 
upon ofhcials charged with responsibility, pro- 
duce in practice results exactly the opposite of 
those intended. Could this contract have been 
awarded entire for a lump sum we should have 
known in the beginning the exact amount to 
be expended and all of the subsequent trouble 
would have been obviated. The Board main- 
tained the spirit of this resolution as far as it 
w^as practicable. Since the law required that 
the contract should be awarded by schedule 
and item, they determined to prepare a special 
schedule to contain only those items required 
for the new Capitol. The object was to attract 
the attention of bidders as much as possible 
by separating it from the bulk}' general sched- 
ule of supplies. The law required advertise- 
ment in twelve newspapers. They inserted 
the advertisement in fourteen newspapers and 
called particular attention to the fact that it 
was for the equipment of the Capitol. When 
the bids were opened it was found that upon 
all of the forty-one items, except upon four, 
John H. Sanderson was the lowest bidder. Af- 



ter a full discussion of the subject the Board 
awarded the contract to him upon all of the 
items. 

In the case of Clark vs. Pittsburg, 217 Pa. 51, 
the Supreme Court said : "If each item of 
extra work should be awarded to a separate 
bidder the confusion to follow in the general 
work may be well imagined, even if the imagi- 
nation of the distinguished counsel for appellee 
is stretched in likening it in bis brief to the 
confusion of tongues that occurred in the con- 
struction of the tower of Babel." The mem- 
bers of the Board were impressed with the 
correctness of this thought. Individually I was 
well pleased that Sanderson had secured the 
contract. I had never met him in my life until 
introduced to him by Mr. Carson on the day the 
bids were opened, and never had had any rela- 
tions with him of any kind, business, social or 
personal, but I knew that he had successfully 
furnished the County Court House in Camden, 
and that he had the reputation in Philadelphia 
of making the best of furniture. I believed his 
selection meant unusually good work, and 
the result justified this belief. Tiffany, of 
New York, and Wanamaker, of Philadelphia, 
through their agents, had for a week or ten 
days been going over the work and the plans, 
and the belief of the Board expressed at the 



time was that Sanderson had been forced into 
making a proposition advantageous to the Com- 
monwealth. Since the actual bidders were few, 
it was debated whether it would be well to re- 
advertise, and the conclusion was that by such 
a course we would be more likely to lose than 
to gain, a conclusion in which I concurred. 

Before the award was made the Board sent 
for the architect and insisted upon his giving 
in a general way his estimate of the probable 
cost of the work undertaken. He named a 
sum of from $500,000 to $800,000, and the 
estimate was entered on the minutes. The 
Board required the architect to make a set of 
Quantities Plans and a Quantities Book, which 
gave a description of each piece of work and 
article of furniture and its location in the build- 
ing. They also required the architect to cer- 
tify the correctness of the bills before they 
were paid, and the contractors to make affi- 
davits to the same effect. The only one of 
these precautions demanded by the law was 
the certificate of the Superintendent. I have 
pondered over the matter at times since in an 
effort to see whether there was anything else 
which could have been done better to safe- 
guard the interests of the Commonwealth, and 
in vain. I put the query to the Investigation 
Commission of the Legislature when I appear- 



ed before them, and received no response. I 
now ask each of you whether you, with all the 
assistance of the light since given, looking at 
the problem from the point of view of experi- 
ence and not of forecast, can suggest any other 
precautions that could have been taken. 

The Capitol was erected, furnished and 
equipped. It was all done within the compar- 
atively brief period of four years, an unparal- 
lelled example of expedition and zeal in the 
public behalf. When the Legislature met in 
their next session the halls of the Senate and 
House were ready for their use and there was 
nothing wanting for their comfort. When the 
new Governor whom you had elected came to 
Harrisburg he found his decorated office and 
beautiful reception room, lined with the paint- 
ings of Violet Oakley, ready for his occupancy. 
The Attorney General sat in his stately apart- 
ments and put away with a sense of absolute 
security his indictments into the steel cases 
which had been prepared for him. The In- 
vestigation Commission, upon carved chairs 
and around spacious tables, rested at ease as 
they wrote their condemnation of the men who 
had seen to it that these appliances were pro- 
vided. 

The Capitol contains four hundred and sev- 
enty-five rooms. Unlike the Capitol at Wash- 



ington, it provides for all of the departments 
of the government. It is five hundred and 
twenty feet long, two hundred and fifty-four 
feet in width, two hundred and seventy-two 
feet in height, covers two acres of ground and 
is half a mile in circumference. It is larger 
than St. Paul's Cathedral, for building which 
Sir Christopher Wren was knighted by a grate- 
ful sovereign, and it is longer than Westminster 
Abbey. The weight of the dome is fifty-two 
millions of pounds. While every continent 
contributed to its construction, it everywhere 
gives expression to the life, the thought and 
the achievement of this Commonwealth. The 
most skilled artists in the world devoted their 
talent to its adornment. It contains the finest 
bronze work in America. Around the dome 
are these citations from the writings of Penn : 

"That we may do the thing that is truly 
wise and just." 

"That an example may be set up to the 
nations." 

"There may be room there for such a holy 
experiment." 

"For the nations want a precedent." 

"And my God will make it the seed of a 
nation." 

Said Theodore Roosevelt : "Those are the 
most magnificent bronze doors I haTC ever 
24 



seen." The Hon. George W. McCall, of Mas- 
sachusetts, recently said to me : "It is the most 
beautiful public building I have ever seen." 
Alany men and women of taste and experience 
have described it as the finest not only in 
America, but in the world. A traveller from 
Europe put in print: "The Capitol v^hich in 
its mass of granite reigns over the city seems 
to throw a shadow of power and richness over 
everything. The outlines equal in beauty any 
of the beautiful monuments passing into pos- 
terity. . . , But the Capitol as it is will 
remain a jewel of which a nation may be 
proud. . . . The man who has achieved 
and executed this monument is a genius." 

Most of such works heretofore undertaken 
have resulted in architectural and artistic fail- 
ure, but all who have seen the Capitol of 
Pennsylvania are impressed with its beauty 
and acknowledge its success. Moreover, both 
building and equipment have stood the test of 
time. It has now been in the use of the un- 
friendly for four years, another year is rolling 
along, and no man arises anywhere to say that 
there is aught wanting or imperfect. 

The financial part of the problem shows such 
marvelous results that nothing can explain the 
lack of public attention to it except an inten- 
tion that you, the people of the State, should 
25 



not be informed. When Massachusetts erect- 
ed her Capitol she borrowed the money to pay 
for it. When New York erected her Capitol 
she likewise borrowed the money to cover the 
expenditure. Pennsylvania borrowed no 
money. She imposed no tax. At the close of 
the fiscal year December i. 1902. before the 
work was commenced, the balance in the Trea- 
sury was $12,868,806.34 

At the close of the fiscal year 
December i. 1906, after the 
work had been completed and 
paid for the balance was $11,440,042.00 

In the meantime the five departments before 
referred to were erected, organized and equip- 
ped, the count}- bridges which had been washed 
away across the Susquehanna rebuilt, the for- 
estry reserves doubled, a number of armories 
built for the National Guard, and the debt re- 
duced to the extent of $1,160,482.00. The 
outcome is emphasized by the events of later 
histor}-. It might well have been expected 
that with the cessation of this extraordinary 
expenditure, with an increase of revenue, and 
with nothing new in the way of department or 
constructive work, the balance in the treasury 
Avould much increase. That balance December 
I. 1909. had fallen to $8,620,014.79. 

I ask of you. who may be interested and 
26 



who care for the reputation of your State, to 
scrutinize the annals of American finance and 
see whether you can find anywhere in State 
or nation a parallel for this achievement. So 
far as I know, it has never been equalled. 
There has never before been so much time 
given to, and so much money expended upon, 
the investigation of the details of a public work 
as in the case of this Capitol, and it has seemed 
to me that if fairness toward men were not a 
sufiicient motive, curiosity alone ought to have 
led some investigator, somewhere, to an in- 
quiry as to how it was possible to achieve sucli 
a financial result. The time has now come 
when you shall be informed. 

Dr. William P. Snyder, whom you elected 
Auditor General, was an exceptionally capable 
and efficient public official. Appointed by 
Governor Stone a member of the Building 
Commission, and being also a member of the 
Board of Public Grounds and Buildings, the 
success of the Capitol was largely due to his 
efforts. During his term of office he collected 
from delinquent corporations taxes part of 
which had been neglected or regarded as worth- 
less by his predecessors. Democratic and Re- 
publican, some of them as remote as the year 
1844, amounting to the sum of $5,818,159.87. 
He is no political friend of mine. I have 
27 . 



reason to believe that he did what he could 
in Chester county to prevent my nomination 
for the Governorship. But I do not hesitate 
to tell you this fact concerning his public 
service, and it is for you to estimate its value. 
In addition, during my term and under my 
direction there were collected from the Gov- 
ernment of the United States upon claims 
arising out of the War of 1812, nearh^ a 
century ago, and out of the War of the Re- 
bellion, nearly a half century ago, $1,238,- 
136.91. All of the moneys, therefore, which 
the Board of Public Grounds and Buildings 
expended in beautifying and equipping your 
Capitol w^ere dipped up as it were out of the 
seas. Do you really think they did very 
wrong in feeling that they ought so to invest 
them ? Remember that the same energy which 
led them to aid in building a Capitol led them 
to gather what under other circumstances 
w^ould probably have been lost. 

Not only was the Capitol erected and equip- 
ped without delay, without taxing you for the 
purpose, without borrowing money or materi- 
ally lessening the balance in the treasuiy, but 
it may be safely affirmed that it was done at 
a reasonable cost. The architect publicly de- 
clared that it was the cheapest building of its 
character in the country, and he gave figures 
28 



to prove the fact. Since no one undertook to 
refute the statement it is probably correct. 
This does not mean that no mistakes were 
made or that there were not instances in which 
articles, if they had stood alone, could have 
been bought for a less sum. In a matter of 
such complication and difficulty it would be 
remarkable if such instances did not occur. 
It ought to be remembered, too, that for a 
rival contractor to say on the street or 
on the stand that if he had secured the con- 
tract certain articles would have cost the Com- 
monwealth less is a very different proposition 
from making a bid to that effect on which he 
could be held responsible. Talk and opinion 
are always in abundance and have little market 
value. The only sensible way of forming a 
conclusion as to whether the expenditure is 
reasonable or otherwise is to make a compari- 
son with other similar work. The questions 
so elaborately presented by the Legislative In- 
vestigation Commission and in the Courts, of 
the difference between the cost and charges 
for a specific article of furniture or piece of 
work are wide of the mark, for the reason that 
they leave out of view the general expenses 
connected with the whole undertaking. 

For the purpose of this comparison I take 
the figures given by the Investigation Commis- 
29 



sion, who had the aid of the Audit Company 
of New York at an expense of $28,001.40. 
They gave the total cost of the construction of 
the building as $6,985,968.52. Of this sum 
the Building Commission expended $3,970,- 
000.00, and the Board of Public Grounds and 
Buildings $3,015,968.52. In an effort to have 
the sum as large as possible the Investigation 
Commission made the mistake of including 
$303,693.14 expended for the Highway De- 
partment under direction of the act of April 
5, 1903, after the contract for construction 
had been awarded ; but as they stand these fig- 
ures differ widely from those to which you 
have grown accustomed. The larger sum of 
which you have heard so much — $13,159,- 
601.01: — is only reached by including the cost 
of a building commenced by Governor Hast- 
ings, in 1897, the furniture, the metallic cases, 
the temporary arrangements for the session of 
1905 and other items, and is about as accurate 
as though you were to include the books in 
your library and your wife's fur cloak in the 
cost of your house. I^stimate., the ent i r e cost 
of building, furniture, metal cases and equip- 
ment at $11,033,400.89. I am not an expert 
and do not assume to guarantee these figures 
as absolute, but I believe them to be more 
nearly correct than any others which have been 
30 



published, even those for which you have paid. 
The result is reached by omitting $550,000 
expended upon the Hastings building and by 
allowing one-eighth of the cost for the five de- 
partments created after the contract. 

The Capitol at Washington contains four 
hundred and twenty rooms, fifty-five less than 
the Capitol at Harrisburg. From the official 
reports published in 1901 it had cost the Na- 
tional Government for construction alone 
$18,227,424.81. 

The Capitol of Massachusetts, about one- 
half the size, cost for construction alone $3,- 
477,226.00. 

The Library of Congress, the only building 
in the country which can be compared with the 
Capitol in artistic merit, with 2,039,582 cubic 
feet of contents less, cost for construction alone 
$6,344,585.34. 

The Capitol of New York cost for construc- 
tion, and is still unfinished, $24,265,382.01. 

The City Hall in Philadelphia cost for con- 
struction alone $18,243,339.86. 

The depot of the Pennsylvania Railroad in 
New York, with tunnel and approaches, cost 
for construction, $112,965,415.12. 

A single hotel in New York built for a pri- 
vate corporation about the same time actually 
31 



required a greater outlay than the Capitol of 
Pennsylvania. 

Comparisons with some buildings nearer 
home may also be helpful to your judg- 
ment. Alongside of the Capitol stands the 
hall of the Executive Department, built by 
Governor Pattison at a cost of $500,000.00, 
A squat, two-story stone building, covered with 
plaster, ornamented with imitation marble col- 
umns, in the same proportion the massive gran- 
ite Capitol would be modest at $25,000,000.00. 
For the Eastern Pennsylvania State Institution 
for the Feeble Minded and Epileptic at Spring 
City, there have been expended for construc- 
tion $1,100,000.00, and for the Homoeopathic 
State Hospital for the Insane at Rittersville 
$1,903,750.00. Each of these is but a hospital 
and neither has been completed. The Girard 
Trust Building at the corner of Broad and 
Chestnut Streets, in Philadelphia, the dimen- 
sions of which are only 137 feet by 134 feet 
II inches, cost, without the ground, for con- 
struction and furniture, $1,541,236.26. 

Compared with any one or all of these struc- 
tures erected in different parts of the country 
and at home, is it not fair to claim that the 
expenditure upon the Capitol was reasonable? 

I have described to you what was accom- 
plished for your welfare by the members of 
32 



the Building- Commission and the Board of 
PubHc Grounds and Buildings, and I now pro- 
pose to say a few words about them as indi- 
viduals. It has been the fortune of my life 
to have been brought into contact with men 
in all classes of society, from Presidents of 
the United States and Judges of the Courts, 
down to those confined in the dock charged 
with crime, and to have been required to study 
their characters and judge of the probabilities 
of what the latter had to tell. You threw me 
among the men who builded the Capitol. I 
saw them at their work and I shall give you 
my judgment. One and all I believe them to 
have been impelled by an earnest desire so to 
perform their task that it would be creditable 
alike to themselves and to the Commonwealth. 
It is said that Governor Stone described Hus- 
ton, the architect, as a dreamer. I think that 
characterization is in part correct. What was 
needed in his position was not a bookkeeper 
or the cashier of a bank, but an artist and poet, 
with imagination enough to design, with en- 
thusiasm enough to carry his inspirations into 
execution, and with none too keen an appre- 
ciation of the importance of mere money. If 
the building had been erected by the Audit 
Company of New York, it would have been 
exact no doubt, but little else. The builders, 
33 



each of them, expected that if they should suc- 
ceed in erecting a Capitol adequate for the 
needs of the government, substantial in its 
material, tasteful in its art, and should complete 
the work with promptness, it would meet with 
your appreciation and to them would be ac- 
corded the meed of your praise. They were 
entitled to entertain that expectation. No 
man can with truth deny that the Capitol meets 
all of those requirements. Instead, however, 
of receiving the commendation they properly 
anticipated, they were confronted and some of 
them overwhelmed by a display of propensities 
at once both mean and ignoble. Another set 
of men came into the exercise of the powers 
of the government, and during the next four 
years the Capitol, thanklessly accepted with 
all of its conveniences and facilities, was utterly 
lost sight of amid outcries over the moneys 
which had been expended. There was no ad- 
miration of strength, there was no recognition 
of beauty, there was no appreciation of art, 
there was no sense that the soul of Pennsyl- 
vania had found expression in a wonderful 
production, and no utterance of any sentiment 
or feeling in connection with it except that of 
the sordid love of money. And every' man of 
them, who joined in these cries, was well aware 
all of the time that he had not contributed and 
34 



had not been called upon to contribute any- 
thing of his substance towards its erection. 
In the words of Schiller : "Mit der Dummheit 
kampffen Gotter selbst vergebens." 

Buildings as well as men have their fortunes 
and misfortunes. The Capitol was in several 
respects adventitiously unfortunate. In the 
first place Senator Quay had recently died. 
In a way it was the final expression of the 
power he had so long wielded in the affairs 
of the Commonwealth. In every county were 
men whom he had defeated in political com- 
bats who, not daring to confront him longer 
while he was alive, were ready nevertheless, 
now that he was dead, to indicate their unhap- 
piness over the merits of any work which 
might perhaps be associated with his career. 
In the second place, the Capitol was completed 
at a time when there was a spirit prevalent 
over the entire land which made an attack upon 
it, as upon every other important work, in- 
evitable. Men in high places had secured a 
temporary but pronounced popularity by as- 
sailing business interests and private property, 
and their lesser imitators arose in every com- 
munity seeking this kind of factitious repu- 
tation. In the general boiling and overrunning 
of the pot, Pennsylvania could hardly hope to 
escape some scars. 

35 



In the third place, just as the work was fin- 
ished, by one of those freaks of ill fortune 
which come to spoil the campaigns of the 
ablest of generals, a Democrat from Illinois 
was elected to the position of State Treasurer 
and became a member of the Board of Public 
Grounds and Buildings. The time has now 
come when it is necessary for me to include 
in this narration the characterization of an in- 
dividual, and I shall endeavor to be as fair 
to him as the truth will permit. No man 
can understand the French Revolution unless 
he has some measure of the mental and moral 
qualities of the Jacobins. The attack upon the 
Capitol was the work of William H. Berry, 
and whatever of credit or discredit may come of 
it belongs to him, and ought to be accorded 
to him. The crop which was later gathered 
by legislators, lawyers, newspapers and poli- 
ticians came from the seed of his sowing. 
No such shallow devices as his exclusion from 
the counsels of the Investigation Commission, 
and from the witness stand in the Courts, 
can deprive him of the honors which are 
justly and almost exclusively his own. He was 
no ordinary Democrat, such as grow to ma- 
turity upon the farms around Reading and 
Allentown. Without intelligent comprehension 
of affairs, without broad reading or culti- 
36 



vation, without thorough information upon 
any subject, he was nevertheless fluent and 
ready to instruct the world. Without finan- 
cial capacity to manage his own business in 
such a way as to attain success, he had been 
called to take charge of revenues amounting to 
$25,000,000.00 annually. He contended that 
the country can be enriched by the unlimited 
issue of paper mone}-. He was sufficient of 
a reformer to turn out the trained clerks in 
his department and put his friends in their 
places. He was sufficient of a moralist to put 
the State funds in a trust company from which 
he could get a loan upon his brickyard. He 
was nevertheless genial and affable, and sought 
the aid and experience of Dr. Snyder, in keep- 
ing his records, with all the warmth of good 
fellowship. I believe that he did not really in- 
tend to do any great harm, and that his main 
purpose was to help the Lord in an effort to 
place a suitable incumbent in the Governorship 
or the Vice-Presidency. 

In the fourth place, and most important of 
all, the Legislature which was to follow would 
elect a United States Senator to succeed Sena- 
tor Penrose, and if Stuart, who had been 
nominated for the Governorship, could be de- 
feated, Penrose as the leader of the Republican 
party in the State would be overthrown. 
Z7 



Penrose had just come into control of the 
organization of the party, and his hold upon 
it was by no means assured. The blow at the 
Capitol was in reality directed at him. In the 
campaign which followed Berr)^ became the 
apostle, the newspapers constituted the cohorts, 
and the object sought to be secured was the 
control of a great Commonwealth. The beau- 
ties and expenses of the Capitol, the candidacy 
of Stuart, and the fate of Snyder were only 
incidents which marked the course of the con- 
test. 

The attack opened up over a very trivial 
miatter. The great bronze doors, the most im- 
pressive in America, were ornamented with a 
number of human heads, each of them rather 
larger than a walnut and smaller than a base- 
ball. Ingenuity can discover among them the 
faces of Dickens, Grant, Shakespeare and the 
death mask of Napoleon. A like ingenuity 
did discover a resemblance to certain officials 
and men active in aflfairs. and for weeks these 
little heads were the only material available 
and were made to do full duty. With the ad- 
vent of Berry they were abandoned, the scope 
was widened, and the winds were let loose. 
Everything that irresponsible and disciplined 
guile could originate in an effort to belittle 
tlie achievement and to increase the expense 
38 



was published broadcast. The figures were 
perverted. Double-leaded editorials were put 
forth day after day condemning the secrecy 
with which the work had been undertaken, in 
newspapers whose own affidavits to the cor- 
rectness of their receipted bills for advertising 
it, lay in the Treasury, and although during 
its progress the representatives of the entire 
press had come to the Board of Public Grounds 
and Buildings and prevailed on them to change 
the arrangements for correspondents in the 
Senate and House. Berry, instead of attend- 
ing to the duties of his office, went around the 
State brandishing the leg of a chair which he 
had secured somehow, somewhere, and talked 
violently about imposture, although when the 
cases came later to be tried counsel conceded 
of record that the material and labor were in 
every way in accord with the specifications of 
the contract. On one occasion while Berry 
was out on the stump assailing his colleagues 
who were in Harrisburg attending to the busi- 
ness of the State, a bill was presented to the 
Board charging $850 for the erection of a flag- 
pole. This pole was erected because James M. 
Lamberton, Esq., had called our attention to a 
statute requiring it. The erection of this pole 
made it necessai-y to cut through the stone roof 
of the Capitol, an interference with the con- 
39 



tract of guarantee of permanence and imper- 
viousness. The pole had to be both substan- 
tial and safe. Nevertheless I thought the bill 
too large, in which I had the support of Sny- 
der, and we stopped its payment. A couple 
of weeks later Berry returned on a vacation 
from his political toil and I asked him what 
he thought ought to be paid for the pole. He 
said he could get one for $150.00, a statement 
which was not correct. The next morning 
far and wide the newspapers proclaimed how 
Berry had prevented the payment for the pole, 
and it furnished many a headline for the cam- 
paign. After the election we all three united 
in ordering $600 to be paid for it. Its only 
importance now is that it furnishes you an 
illustration of what was going on at the time. 
The real accusation, however, dinned into 
your ears in every possible form of assertion 
and innuendo was that of graft ; that is, that 
the officials having control of the work made 
money for themselves by a combination with 
the contractors. We met this storm right 
squarely in the face. With its earliest mur- 
murings Snyder and I published a statement 
showing every cent which had been expended 
by ourselves and others in each and every way 
in connection with the building and equipment 
of the Capitol. That put you in possession of 
40 



the actual facts. The result was that all pos- 
sible changes were rung over the figures, and 
the manliness and integrity of the act were 
ignored. Then we invited Charles Emory 
Smith, the editor of The Press; George W. 
Ochs, the proprietor of The Ledger, and 
Charles H. Heustis, the editor of The Inquirer, 
three leading Philadelphia newspapers, to come 
up and examine the building and books of 
account. They were willing enough to deal in 
adjectives, adverbs and generalities, but had a 
reluctance to confront facts, and they declined. 
Then I made arrangements with the railroads 
for cheap excursion rates of fare and invited 
you to come and see for yourselves. Sixty 
thousand of you came. I shook hands with 
ten thousand upon one Saturday, and they 
went home like missionaries, telling their 
neighbors of the wonders of the building they 
had inspected. The result of this bold and 
straightforward course was that Stuart was 
saved from defeat, Penrose was saved from 
destruction, and I had the intense personal sat- 
isfaction of knowing that the main object 
sought to be accomplished by the cultivation 
of scandal had been thwarted. 

It is hard to kick against the pricks, it is 
difficult to tell a story in conflict with the truth 
which is mighty and in the end prevails, for 
41 



the stars in their courses fight for its disclosure. 
Some quite recent developments give us a 
glimpse of the machinery which directed this 
scandal. At that time James M. Guffey, who 
had made an immense fortune in oil, was the 
leader or boss of the Democratic party in the 
State. In 19 lo through some unlucky turn 
of affairs he went into bankruptcy. Among 
his assets his assignee found a note to his order 
for $15,000, given in 1906 by William H. 
Berry, long overdue and unpaid. It was prob- 
ably understood between them that it was not 
intended to be a real financial obligation. At 
all events, Berry made no effort to pay it and 
Guffey made no effort to collect it. Berry 
acted as though he felt under no obligation, 
because in a convention of his party he aided 
in an effort to oust Guffey from party leader- 
ship, and the only possible inference from their 
conduct is that both felt that Guffey had re- 
ceived consideration for his money. In the 
stress of the political campaign of 19 10 Berry 
in a published statement gave this explanation : 
"During my incumbency as Treasurer I was 
subject to extraordinary expense in exposing 
the Capitol steal. ... I accepted the 
financial help of several Democrats, each with- 
out the knowledge of the others, and among 
them Mr. Guffey." Probably each of them 
42 



would have been disappointed to learn that 
what he had believed to be his own monopo- 
listic venture was in reality a joint operation, 
and therefore, in the goodness of his heart, 
Berry did not inform any of them of what the 
others had done. 

Since charges had been made and circulated 
in sensational fashion all over the United 
States, to the great delight of your enemies 
and rivals and those of the Commonwealth, it 
was generally felt that they ought to be ser- 
iously examined, and in my final message I 
recommended an official investigation. The 
Attorney General, the Hon. Hampton L. Car- 
son, undertook such an inquiry. Of all men 
in public life he was probably the best fitted 
by personal qualifications and previous train- 
ing for the performance of such a duty. Keen 
in intellect and one of the purest hearted men 
ever born, a scholar of wide attainments, his 
fame as a lawyer had extended over the whole 
country, and the mere fact that he was willing 
to accept the office of Attorney General was 
an honor and assurance to you. Moreover he 
had written the leading book upon the sub- 
ject of conspiracies, accepted by lawyers as an 
authority, and was therefore an especially dis- 
ciplined expert. He examined the contracts, 
papers and parties, having the advantage of 
43 



the statements of Berry and Sanderson which 
the Investigation Commission failed to secure, 
and he made a complete and voluminous re- 
port, consisting of three hundred and seventy- 
nine printed pages, in which he reached the 
conclusion from the evidence submitted : "I 
do not hesitate to say that in my judgment 
there is no trace of crime. No conspiracy is 
disclosed between State officers to share in the 
profits of the contracts ; nor between the archi- 
tect and the contractors ; nor to secure the con- 
tracts for the contractors; nor to shape the 
schedules in such a way as to mislead bidders ; 
nor to deter bidders in order to stifle compe- 
tition." 

The effect of the conscientious and laborious 
attempt to work out a correct result by a com- 
petent person was to cause the Attorney Gen- 
eral to be included in the abuse. An accurate 
ascertainment of facts and a just conclusion 
from them were not at all what the occasion 
demanded. A new administration came into 
power which had felt the weight of a storm 
before it grasped the reins. A new Legisla- 
ture occupied the beautiful rooms of the Sen- 
ate and House, and the situation was surround- 
ed with temptations for those whose aspira- 
tions looked to the future. 

Upon the meeting of the Legislature a com- 
44 



mission, consisting of three members of the 
Senate and four Members of the House, was 
appointed "to make a full investigation of all 
the circumstances and transactions connected 
Avith the erection, construction and furnishing 
of the State Capitol." 

The Commission as appointed consisted of 
Senators John S. Fisher, A. E. Sisson and 
Arthur G. Dewalt, and Representatives R. W. 
Fair, Moses Shields, R. Scott Ammerman and 
Robert Dearden. I give their names because 
in this matter each individual ought to bear 
his own share of responsibility and receive the 
commendation or opprobrium which belongs 
to him. Certainly it may be conceded that sel- 
dom in human affairs have men been charged 
with greater responsibility. An important 
work had been accomplished and upon the 
wisdom of their conclusions temporarily de- 
pended the question whether it should meet 
with credit or discredit. The good fame of 
the Commonwealth was for the time entrusted 
to them. The fate of officials whose daily 
lives they had seen for years, of Snyder whom 
time and again they had called upon to pre- 
side over the Senate, rested in their hands. 
Oh! the pity of it that in the performance of 
their task they could not have been inspired 
with some of that earnestness of purpose and 
45 



zeal for your welfare displayed by the builders 
and decorators, that they could not have arisen 
above the mephitic airs that surrounded them ! 
Their report will be found upon page 4170 of 
the Legislative Record, Vol. Ill, for 1909. 
From this report it is plain that they started 
out with an entirely incorrect conception of 
their duty. They state it as follows : "The 
questions for the determination of the Com- 
mission were fraud and dishonesty in the mak- 
ing of the contracts, and the performance of 
them." No such questions were submitted to 
them. They were nowhere instructed to de- 
termine fraud and dishonesty. The resolution 
of January 28, 1907, directs them "to make a 
full investigation of the circumstances and 
transactions," and the Act of April 23, 1907, 
appropriates to them the large sum of $100,- 
000 for the purpose "of inquiry." If this in- 
quiry disclosed innocence, zeal and success, 
then it was their duty so to report instead of 
determining fraud and dishonesty. It may be 
said that their statement was made inadver- 
tently, which is probably true, but this inad- 
vertence is important since it unwittingly dis- 
closes the attitude of mind with which they 
approached the inquiry. Berry and the news- 
papers had told them there was fraud, and their 
understanding of the resolution was that they 
46 



were so to find. This is further shown when 
at the very outset they hasten to say: ^*The 
Commission is also indebted to the press of the 
State for timely assistance and information." 
Could anything be more improper and undig- 
nified or show a sadder lack of appreciation 
of the exalted position they occupied as the 
representatives of the Commonwealth in a ser- 
ious examination of a complicated situation? 
If of course a gentleman connected with some 
journal had testified concerning a fact known 
to him alone he might well be thanked. It was 
not that case. The thanks are given to the 
press at large throughout the State. The edi- 
tors of three leading journals had declined 
to examine the Capitol when invited, and it 
is not likely that they had any facts to impart. 
It would be interesting to know how this in- 
formation was conveyed. No one of these 
gentlemen appeared on the witness-stand. In- 
formation imparted in secret and without re- 
sponsibility is not to be trusted, and to the 
extent that this report is based upon such in- 
formation it is unreliable. The assistance 
given, which we are assured was timely, had 
been in the way of intimidating possible 
witnesses and jurymen, arousing among the 
people animosity toward the contractors, pre- 
venting an unprejudiced investigation and in- 
47 



dicating support to any adverse report. These 
thanks are an evidence that the members of the 
Investigation Commission had abdicated, for- 
gotten their functions, and taken their places as 
partisans and assailants. It is very much as 
though a grand jury had thanked a mob of 
lynchers for aiding them in disposing of the 
case. As might well be anticipated from this 
auspicious beginning, the report in every aspect 
of it exhibits a lack of coherent thinking 
and announces inaccurate conclusions with re- 
spect to almost every topic considered. Let 
me illustrate by citations from it so that you 
may understand the ground upon which this 
uncomplimentary averment is made. One of 
the subjects for their condemnation and one 
of the frauds they discovered was in connec- 
tion with the attic contract. Of this contract 
they say : "What is referred to as the attic 
contract embraced a series of changes of room 
arrangements on the fourth (fifth?) floor, and 
provided rooms and equipment on the attic 
floor for new departments of the government." 
After discussing the matter they find that the 
expenditures for this purpose "were illegal and 
unauthorized," and further "that the parties 
to this fraud are amenable to law and should 
be held." In their general findings they return 
to the subject and after condemning the Board 
4S 



of Public Grounds and Buildings for doing 
this work blame the Building Commission for 
permitting the Board "to interfere with its 
contract and duties and to add to the construc- 
tion work of the new Capitol building." When 
they made that finding they had entirely over- 
looked and forgotten the Acts of April 2, 1903, 
April 15, 1903, and May 5, 1905, which speci- 
fically authorized and required the Board to 
do that very thing, although as to some of 
them they themselves had individually voted 
for these acts. 

No doubt this is nothing worse than a blun- 
der due to imperfect investigation, but what 
confidence can be placed in the other conclu- 
sions of men who recommend a prosecution 
based upon no better foundation than their 
failure to observe a fact so obvious as the ex- 
istence of statutes they themselves helped to 
frame? Suppose some Berry, anxious for 
preferment, supported financially by political 
forces, and incited by newspapers eager to sell 
sensations, had charged that they conspired so 
to report and they had been brought before a 
jury and confronted with the statutes, what 
could they have answered? 

In their report they g^o so far as to assume 
the role of prophets and visit their condemna- 
tion upon action which was not taken, bui; 
49 



which in their opinion would have been taken 
had events been otherwise than they were. 
Thus they say : "But there can be Httle doubt 
that if the other bids had been considered the 
bid of Sanderson would have been changed of 
record to meet requirements." What do you 
citizens think of that utterance as a manifes- 
tation of dignity, fairness and justice? If I 
may be permitted a like privilege, then I de- 
clare my conviction that the method pursued 
by the Board of Public Grounds and Buildings 
not only prevented the Capitol from being 
ruined by the diverse fancies of successive leg- 
islative committees, but also saved the expen- 
diture of $12,000,000.00. 

Another matter of the same kind is a gran- 
ite wall around the park, to which they give 
prolonged attention. There is no such wall. 
None was ever built, and no money was ever 
expended on it. Their finding upon this sub- 
ject is : "This contract was actually awarded, 
reconsidered and postponed, reawarded and 
finally suffered to die owing to a vigorous pro- 
test by citizens of Harrisburg which could not 
be silenced." What difference does it make 
what was the reason of the Board for not 
doing this work if as a matter of fact it was 
not done? However, they are utterly mis- 
taken. No contract was ever made. No con- 
50 



tract could be made without my signature. 
Believing that this contract could not be made 
under the head of "Repairs" under the Sched- 
ule, and there being no other item to cover it, 
I refused to enter into the contract. The ori- 
ginal papers on file will show this situation of 
affairs with the absence of my signature, and 
I presume the Audit Company of New York 
was not aware of the provision of the law re- 
quiring all of the members of the Board to 
unite in making contracts and the Investiga- 
tion Commission accepted the statement with- 
out examining the record. 

The report further finds that there was 
fraud in connection with the supply of glass 
for the reason that the glass was made not 
in Baccarat in France, but in Beaver county, 
Pennsylvania, the schedule calling for "the 
best quality cut crystal glass of Baccarat manu- 
facture." There is no finding that it was not 
glass, that it was not crystal, that it was not 
cut, or that it was not best quality, but only 
that it was not made in Baccarat. I suppose 
there was some dispute in the testimony as 
to whether the word Baccarat as used in the 
contract was a trade name or the name of a 
little village in a foreign country. I warn you 
that I am only able to suppose because the 
testimony and the report of the Audit Com- 
51 



pany of New York, which are the foundation 
stones of the investigation, have through the 
whole of this inquiry been kept out of sight. 
The finding upon this subject furnishes an- 
other instance of a lack of familiarity with 
legislation upon the part of these legislators. 
The Act of March 26, 1895, Sec. 5, P. L., p. 
24, directs the Superintendent of Public 
Grounds and Buildings that "In preparing the 
list or schedule he shall in all cases give pref- 
erence to goods of American production or 
manufacture." If the glass was of greater or 
equal merit it may at least be said for the 
Board that they pursued the policy of the law, 
but this fact escaped the attention of and had 
no weight with the investigators. 

The report in its "General Findings and 
Conclusions" gives the first and most conspicu- 
ous place to this proposition : "As the pro- 
visions of the law contemplate the refurnish- 
ing and repair of an old Capitol Building rath- 
er than the furnishing of a new Capitol Build- 
ing or the making of alterations or additions 
thereto while the same is in process of con- 
struction in the hands of the contractors," 
therefore the construction of the law as inter- 
preted by the Board of Public Grounds and 
Buildings is "a clear evasion," and the certifi- 
cates upon which warrants were issued "were 

52 



made intentionally and fraudulently," and the 
contracts "were illegal and unauthorized by 
law." I hope you will bear with me patiently 
while I point out the utter fallacy of this prop- 
osition. The report miscites the statute. If 
the word used in the statute were only "re- 
furnishing" it might be argued that it applied 
to an old building which had been furnished 
before, but the words are "furnishing and re- 
furnishing," and therefore contemplate build- 
ings which had not been furnished before as 
well as those which had been so furnished. 
The words "old" and "new" do not occur in 
the statute and are interpolated in order to 
justify the finding. The statute gives the 
Board "entire control and supervision of the 
public grounds and buildings, . . . and 
all the repairs, alterations and improvements." 
Where does the Investigation Commission find 
in this language anything which limits the al- 
terations and improvements to old buildings? 
How old ought they to be? An act directed 
the Board to provide rooms for the Highway 
Department in the Capitol. Where would have 
been the sense in letting the construction be 
finished only to be torn out and done over 
again with the additional expense? 

The Investigation Commission take the po- 
sition that since it was a new building in process 
53 



of construction, the Board had no authority to 
make contracts for furniture. If the Board had 
taken this view the building when completed 
would have been of no use. If they had insisted 
upon an interpretation of the law in my judg- 
ment so preposterous, I do not hesitate to say 
that I should not have permitted the situation 
to continue, and as Governor I would have or- 
dered the proper equipment of the building. 
In this connection I shall now make a proposi- 
tion of constitutional and fundamental law 
which never occurred to the investigators and 
will probably startle them. It is said that the 
lenses in the eye of a house-fly are adapted to 
things so minute that to him the smoothness 
of a painting of Raphael is a landscape of hill 
and dale. While the investigators were ex- 
amining as with a microscope for some flaw 
in the leg of a chair or some misplaced entry 
in the books of account, they lost sight of the 
Capitol, the Governor and the Commonwealth. 
The Governor of Pennsylvania is one of the 
most potent rulers on earth. In this respect 
he is far above the President of the United 
States, upon whom is conferred only limited 
power. In defining the power of the Governor 
of Pennsylvania the Constitution of the State 
uses the strongest word in the English lan- 
guage and makes him '^supreme." It is the 
54 



adjective usually applied to the Deity. It 
means that his authority as executive can be 
questioned by nobody, and that he is only 
answerable to his conscience. Like the King 
of England, he can do no wrong. Like the 
Pope of Rome, his conclusions are infallible. 
"The supreme executive power shall be vested 
in the Governor who shall take care that the 
laws be faithfully executed." He is the 
guardian of the laws and to him is given su- 
premacy. It is through this authority that he 
has time and again called forth the National 
Guard, involving life and death to men and 
the expenditure of millions of dollars. In 
Hartranft's Appeal, 85 Penna. 433, where the 
questions arose over the killing of a number 
of persons under his orders, the Supreme 
Court decided that the Governor was "the sole 
judge not only of what his official duties are 
but of the time when they should be attended 
to," and that "he must be the judge of the 
necessity requiring the exercise of the powers 
with which he is clothed." It would have 
made no difference if the Court had not so 
decided. 

While it would not be discreet or wise for 

the Governor to exercise such a power, he 

may, like Richelieu invoking the authority of 

Rome, in case of real necessity, order not only 

55 



the furnishing but the building of a Capitol 
irrespective of the Act of 1895 or any other 
acts and it would be the duty of the Legisla- 
ture answering to their oaths to appropriate 
the money to pay for them. It is idle to con- 
tend that a State must perish for want of an 
Act of Assembly and the fact that this 
thought does not seem to have occurred to 
investigators, lawyers or courts, illustrates 
how narrow and imperfect a view has been 
taken of this whole subject. When the 
Legislature unwisely put the Governor on the 
Board of Public Grounds and Buildings it put 
him there as Governor with all of his power, 
and the acts of the Board in which he 
participates are his acts. The efforts of the 
Investigation Commission, Attorney General 
and other minor officials to hold the members 
of the Board responsible on the ground of 
want of authority, were therefore not only a 
violation of law but in a sense revolution and 
treason. 

The work of the Investigation Commission 
was as defective in what it failed to do as in 
its affirmative conclusions. It entirely failed 
to discover, with its expensive expert, that the 
building and equipment had been paid for 
without withdrawing the balance in the treas- 
ury, a fact of overwhelming importance in an 
56 



inquiry involving the skill, faithfulness and 
integrity of those in charge. It failed to find 
the fact that the Board had succeeded in get- 
ting the architect in the contract with him to 
lessen his commissions twenty per cent, below 
the usual rate which he demanded, although 
this fact appeared in the letters before them 
and the evidence. It failed to find that with 
respect to the contract with Edwin A. Abbey 
for art work involving $207,877.50, Sander- 
son to whom it had been awarded made no 
profit whatever, although this appeared in the 
written agreements on file. It failed to find 
that when the Attorney General and John G. 
Johnson, Esq., came to draw the agreement 
with Abbey for paintings they felt bound to 
put the compensation upon the basis of the 
"per foot" rule, though this rule figures 
extensively in its report. It failed to secure 
the testimony of either Berry, Sanderson or 
Huston. If the question of the profit of San- 
derson was material, then it failed to find 
what was that profit. If it was of conse- 
quence to know what was the profit upon the 
erection and equipment of the building, then 
it failed to find what was that profit. Infor- 
mation upon this subject would have been 
intensely interesting, but after all the in- 
vestigations, and all the trials we are as 
57 



much in the dark about it as we were 
before. It failed to find what the build- 
ing and equipment ought to have cost, what 
they were worth, or whether or not the sum 
for which they were placed there was reason- 
able. There is much about detail, and the 
methods of keeping books, and about sofas 
and chairs, but these broad and only essential 
matters are entirely ignored. 

I now approach a subject more specific and 
even more important. Bear in mind, you 
citizens of Pennsylvania, that the accusation 
was one of graft, in other words, that the 
officials obtained some of that money. The 
Investigation Commission was given $ioo,- 
ooo.oo with which to investigate. It had the 
whole power of the Commonwealth behind 
it. Every banker could be compelled to show 
his books. Every clerk could be compelled 
to tell what he knew. Every one of you, in- 
cluding the editors, could be dragged from 
his home to disclose such information as he 
possessed. The State Treasurer did not pay 
in cash but by a written paper called a war- 
rant which had to be endorsed. The con- 
tractor deposited it in bank and the books 
showed what became of the money. It goes 
without saying that the Commission traced 
these drafts and overhauled the books of the 
58 



banks. It is so reported definitely. What was 
the result? Listen to what the report says: 

"At no point did it show or appear to show 
that any of the moneys paid by the State to 
its contractors in this connection had been di- 
rectly converted to the credit or use of any of 
the State officials in the accounts examined." 

In other words, the ascertainment of facts 
by the Investigation Commission absolutely 
supported the conclusion reached months be- 
fore without outlay by Mr. Carson. The pur- 
suit in all decency ought then and there to 
have ended. After the members of this Com- 
mission had thrown out their dragnet for 
graft and given it the wide sweep which 
$100,000.00 enabled them to do, and hauled 
it in and found nothing, they ought to have 
been strong and manly enough to have resisted 
the clamor and to have reported accordingly. 
Instead, while thus admitting their inability 
to discover any evidences of graft and dis- 
closing the facts which pay tribute to the in- 
tegrity of the officials, they recommended with 
absolute want of logic that suits and prosecu- 
tions be brought. 

The incoming Attorney General, the Hon. 

M, Hampton Todd, felt that his duty required 

him to comply with these recommendations. 

It is necessary in order clearly to comprehend 

59 




the situation at this stage that you should have 
at least a glimpse of his character. He pos- 
sesses all the rigidity and severity which come 
with generations of narrow training, and 
nothing so delights him as the noise of com- 
bat. He believes that if Michael Servetus 
really did accept the doctrine of the Arians 
and deny the Trinity it is entirely proper that 
he should have been burned as a heretic. 
When enlisted in the contest he became de- 
termined to win, even though the Hittites and 
the Amalekites were despoiled of the land. If 
. ""oses and the Israelites could feast upon milk 
and honey, what difference did it make that 
Snyder should go to prison, or Irvine to an 
insane asylum, or Payne to his grave? In 
his ardor as an advocate, and to him a fact 
had value not as a revelation of the truth but 
as an aid to one side of a controversy, he at 
times forgot the plainest rules of professional 
propriety. In an address before the Pennsyl- 
vania Bar Association on the 29th of June, 
1909, after he had argued one of these cases 
before the Court, and pending a decision, in 
the presence of Judges who took part in its 
determination, he reiterated his view of the 
law with respect to it, and added : 

"It was but a slight departure from the 
right path, yet in the end it caused one 
60 



of the greatest scandals of the day. 
ruined the reputations of men who had 
been honored l)y high office, and some 
of whom have gone down in sorrow to 
their graves. It caused a loss of many 
millions of dollars to this State and be- 
smirched its fair fame so that in the 
presence of strangers we hung our heads 
in very shame for the disgrace that had 
been brought upon us." 
If some obscure attorney-at-lavv had en- 
deavored in a petty case to influence the 
Judges outside of the Court he would have 
incurred the risk of disbarment. Whatever 
may have been the effect with these surround- 
ings, Mr. Todd must be acquitted of entertain- 
ing such a purpose, for he is an honorable 
though mistaken gentleman ; but how sad it 
is that a man who fails to keep his own path 
straight in a plain and simple matter of pro- 
fessional ethics should show so little lenity 
toward the supposed lapses of others in a prob- 
lem as complicated as the building of the 
Capitol. 

Thirty indictments were prepared charging 
the defendants with conspiracy, and seven 
others charging them with the crime of false 
pretence. It is not my purpose to discuss 
with you the technical accuracy of the judg- 
6i 



ments which were rendered. There are many 
questions which arise in life of much more 
importance than the correctness of pleadings 
or the admissibility of testimony. I shall ask 
you to rise with me into the higher atmosphere 
of justice and humanity, and I shall present 
to you considerations which appear to me to 
be unanswerable. A conspiracy is necessarily 
based upon some motive entertained in com- 
mon by all of those who take part in it. No 
man becomes a conspirator merely for the pur- 
pose of getting himself into trouble. In the 
l^resent instance the motive alleged was a par- 
ticipation by the officials who were made de- 
fendants in the division of the moneys paid 
to the contractors. That there should have 
been a conspiracy between the contractors and 
the officials is rendered so improbable by the 
circumstances as to be practically unthinkable. 
It is alleged to have included fourteen per- 
sons and if it existed must have been known 
to scores of clerks and employees, not one of 
whom left the slightest trace of its presence 
that could be discovered. It included three 
different sets of contractors, those for the 
building, the metal cases and the furniture, 
who had no interests in common and several 
that were antagonistic. It must have been 
that never before heard of nondescript, an 
62 



automatically transferable conspiracy. It cov- 
ered the terms of two Governors, two Auditors 
Generals and two State Treasurers, and is 
asserted to have included all of them save the 
Governors. They came from different parts 
of the State, strangers to each other and to 
the contractors, as you elected them. In every 
conspiracy heretofore known to the law the 
conspirators, like those who murdered Caesar, 
selected their own companions upon whose 
wicked assistance they could depend. It was 
not so in this conspiracy which was stii generis. 
When one conspirator disappeared from Har- 
risburg and went back to his home you elected 
another conspirator to take his place. They 
were the highest officials in the State and you 
were responsible for them. In its essence the 
charge is one made against your intelligence, 
and your honesty, and it means that you are 
unfit for self government. The State Treas- 
urer and the Auditor General who super- 
vised the preparation of the schedule knew 
at the time they did it that they would 
not be the State Treasurer and the Au- 
ditor General when the moneys were ex- 
pended, and who would be their successors 
they could not tell and you alone would de- 
termine. What kind of assurance then do you 
suppose they gave to the contractors, their fel- 
63 



low conspirators? The conspirators who ex- 
pended the moneys had nothing whatever to 
do with awarding the contract for the metal 
cases, or in preparing the schedule for the fur- 
niture, and therefore had been utterly power- 
less to pave the way for what is alleged to 
have been their own connivance and profit. 
These officials did not even seek their places 
on the Board of Public Grounds and Build- 
ings but were put there by legislation passed 
long before, over which they had no control. 

This a priori reasoning is rendered con- 
clusive when we stop to examine a series of 
ascertained and undisputed facts. It is axio- 
matic in ratiocination that when an accepted 
theory is found to be in conflict with any cer- 
tainly ascertained fact the theory must be 
abandoned. Thus in astronomy if there be 
twelve points found which indicate a circle, 
and then one be found outside of the circum- 
ference, the figure may be an ellipse but it 
cannot be a circle. In law, if the defendant 
charged with murder is proved to have ex- 
pressed an intent to kill and his shoes fit the 
tracks in the field, and he has thrown his 
bloody knife into a quarry, and his hands are 
red, still be must be acquitted if at the time 
of the crime he was a hundred miles away. 

There are a number of facts in this case 
64 



which show conclusively to any one accus- 
tomed to the exercise of the rational faculty 
that no such conspiracy existed. Upon the 
supposition that it did exist Huston, the archi- 
tect, was necessarily the central figure in it 
for the reason that he had general charge of 
the work, ordered every item of material or 
work supplied by the contractors and could 
have prevented any and every bill from being 
paid by withholding his certificate of its cor- 
rectness. The Board of Public Grounds and 
Buildings compelled Huston to accept four 
per cent, instead of five per cent, for his com- 
missions in the way of compensation for his 
services, and it meant a saving of $82,487.89. 
This fact makes it certain they were not in a 
conspiracy with him to divide receipts. They 
could have paid him the five per cent, without 
criticism for the reason that that was the usual 
compensation and the percentage he received 
from the Building Commission. Had they 
been dividing receipts with him there would 
have been this very comfortable increase in the 
amount to be divided. The only possible ex- 
planation of this fact is that the Board were 
acting adversely to the interests of Huston, 
and any possible combination, and were safe- 
guarding the interests of the Commonwealth. 
When the Board employed Huston they wrote 
65 



to him in these words : "It is important, 
nevertheless, that the work should be done as 
economically as possible. No doubt because 
of the fact that you already possess such in- 
formation and of the magnitude of the con- 
tract including Capitol and furniture, you 
would be willing to make special terms advan- 
tageous to the State." 

Before the contract was made with Sander- 
son, the Board required Huston to make a 
general estimate of the probable cost and he 
fixed it at from $500,000 to $800,000. This 
estimate the Board entered upon their minutes. 
This fact is likewise absolutely inconsistent 
with the theory of the existence of a con- 
spiracy. Lawrence Sterne once wrote: "A 
dwarf who carries along a standard to measure 
himself with is a dwarf believe me in more 
articles than one." It is simply inconceivable 
that men intending to spend millions in order 
that they might share in the distribution should 
write down unnecessarily a record with which 
to convict themselves. The fact cannot be ex- 
plained upon any other theory than that it 
was intended by the Board as a means of hold- 
ing Huston within reasonable limits of expen- 
diture. 

The Board at the suggestion of Snyder re- 
quired each contractor to make affidavit to tlie 
66 



correctness of every bill presented by him be- 
fore its payment. This fact alone, if there 
were no others, proves with entire certainty 
that there could have been no conspiracy be- 
tween him and the contractors to divide the 
moneys paid under the contracts. The law 
did not demand such an affidavit. Imagine 
one of two men, engaged in a crime in com- 
mon, saying in effect to the other : "You make 
yourself liable to a prosecution for perjury 
in order that I may appear to be innocent," 
and what would be the answer? Why should 
he want to throw more difficulty about draw- 
ing the moneys they were to share out of the 
treasury? Why should he want to increase 
the dangers? Why did every one of these 
contractors and fellow conspirators submit 
with such docility to this dishonor among 
thieves? The theory is untenable and will not 
bear the light. The contractors made the af- 
fidavits only because they knew they would 
not get the money otherwise. The man who 
devised that scheme was dealing with them, at 
arm's length as the custodian of the interests 
of the State, and no other interpretation is 
possible. 

That Snyder insisted upon the preparation 
by Huston of the Quantities Plans and the 
Quantities Book is a fact of the same con- 
67 



vincing significance. These plans and this 
book located every piece of furniture in the 
entire building and connected it with the bill 
in which it was included. Had there been a 
conspiracy, the more confusion and uncer- 
tainty that could be thrown around the ar- 
ticles to be identified, the more likelihood 
there would be of escape from detection. Why 
should Snyder, as a conspirator, have taken 
such pains to smooth and make easy the path of 
the possible Audit Company of New York? 
Why should he want to make so facile the 
otherwise difficult task of Mr. Todd? As a 
conspirator his course is unfathomable. If we 
adopt, however, the simple explanation that he 
demanded these plans and book in order that 
he should be able to hold the contractors to 
a strict liability, it is entirely comprehensible. 
Like the eagle of the poet, he has been pierced 
with a shaft feathered from his own wing, and 
it has occurred because of the unwillingness 
or inability of the prosecutors to understand 
the obvious meaning of assured facts. 

There were three circumstances connected 
with the awarding and execution of these con- 
tracts which might properly awaken suspicion 
and lead to inquiry, and I shall now give you 
my thought in regard to them with entire 
frankness. 

68 



First. Several of the items in the special 
schedule required the bid to be made at so 
much "per foot." Undoubtedly the Board in 
using this term made a mistake, since a foot 
may be either lineal, square or cubic, and the 
terms of the contract ought not to have been 
open to any uncertainty of construction if it 
could be avoided. This language could and 
should have been made more specific. It may 
be said, however, that this term had been used 
by the Board in making its contracts for many 
years. At the time of the award the uncer- 
tainty of the term made no impression upon 
me for the reason that I knew of the fact 
that contracts for the erection of such com- 
plicated structures as iron bridges were 
effected upon that basis. One fact in this 
connection I have never understood. Of all 
the possible bidders, including Wanamaker 
and Tiffany and others interested, who spent 
much time in the examination of the speci- 
fications, not one of them before the contract 
was awarded said a word to me about any 
difficulty in understanding the meaning of the 
terms used. Had any bidder, or editor, seen 
uncertainty at that time it could and would 
have been easily rectified. There are many 
persons in a community who are much more 
eager to have an opportunity to find fault than 
69 



they are to have things done correctly. 

Second. On the tenth of January, 1905, 

the Board of Pubhc Grounds and Buildings 

adopted this resolution: 

"Resolved that the revised plans pre- 
sented by Joseph M. Huston for the 
special furniture, fittings and decora- 
tions for the equipment of the new 
Capitol building as approved by the 
Board of Public Grounds and Buildings 
December 13, 1904, numbering from 
393 A 213. 394 A 214, 395 A 215, 396 A 
216, 397 A 217, 400 A 200 and 418 A 238 
inclusive, and that the contractor John H. 
Sanderson was directed to furnish the 
same under the supervision of the said 
architect; and the Auditor General be 
hereby directed to make payment for the 
same in part or fully upon certification 
of architect according to the schedule of 
June, 1904, under which this contract was 
awarded, and that the prices on any work 
not provided for in the plans adopted 
December 13, 1904, shall be fully agreed 
upon between the said John H. Sanderson 
and the said Joseph M. Huston, architect, 
subject to the approval of the Board of 
Public Grounds and Buildings and Super- 
intendent J. M. Shumaker before any cer- 
70 



tificate for payment shall be issued." 
This resolution was treated during all of 
the trials by counsel upon each side as mean- 
ing that the bills should be paid without sub- 
mission to the Board as required by the Act 
of 1895. The reason that there was a mutual 
acceptance of this interpretation was probably 
because the prosecution hoped to gain an ad- 
vantage by claiming that it violated the law, 
and the defence by claiming it as authority 
for what was done. The Courts accepted an 
interpretation to which no objection was made. 
Unfortunately in these cases there was more 
effort to win than to ascertain the truth. The 
resolution has no such meaning. By no pos- 
sibility can it be so construed. While inarti- 
ficially drawn its real significance is that no 
bill should be approved by the Board without 
the certificate of the architect and this gave an 
additional safeguard. There is not a word in 
it which says or implies that the bills should 
not be presented to the Board. No resolution 
could set aside an Act of Assembly, and yet 
it has been assumed that this resolution did 
so without saying anything about it or ex- 
pressing any such intention. The language is 
directly to the contrary. The resolution closes 
with the words : "Subject to the approval of 
the Board of Public Grounds and Buildings 
71 



and Superintendent J. M. Shumaker before 
any certificate for payment shall be issued." 
These words qualify the whole resolution, are 
in exact compliance with the law, and cannot 
be confined to the extra work which only 
happens to be the last described. 

The Auditor General and the State Treas- 
urer took the erroneous view of this resolution 
which was later accepted by the lawyers, and 
did not bring the bills before the Board for 
approval until payments had run up to a large 
sum. I shall give you my explanation of the 
reason for such action with the understanding 
that I have no knowledge of their motives, and 
may be entirely mistaken, and do them wrong. 
The Governor and the other two members of 
the Board were not in entire accord either in 
experience, views of life or in judgment as 
to what ought to be done. The fault in the 
situation is fundamental and arises necessarily 
from lack of correct principle in the Constitu- 
tion. These officials were elected by the people 
and therefore chafed under the thought of 
control by the Governor. Moreover, they 
were both ambitious and looked forward to 
further preferment in the event of the comple- 
tion of a great work well accomplished. The 
mere handling of the moneys and control over 
and contact with contractors and employees is 



an element of political strength. Seeing a 
possible interpretation of the resolution which 
avoided the Governor they took advantage of 
the opportunity. If this be correct it was a 
fault, and grievously have they answered it, 
but the gratification of political hopes and the 
effort to work out political plans are very dif- 
ferent things from the "graft" with which 
they were accused. 

Third. Before the contract was awarded 
the architect at the request of the Board made 
a rough general estimate of the probable cost 
and fixed it at from $500,000 to ^800.000. 
This sum was much exceeded. It was not ex- 
pected to be exact or to be anything more 
than a guide. I believe the architect had no 
sure grounds upon which to base his estimate 
and that to some extent the expenses ran away 
with him as he groped along. For the con- 
struction of such a building there was no pre- 
cedent, and it is not at all remarkable that he 
could not approximate the cost. It may be 
said for him with truth that he was less astray 
in his estimates than were the trained en- 
gineers who gave estimates for the cost of the 
Quebec bridge, the tunnel under the Hudson, 
and the Panama Canal, and many other large 
ventures which have been undertaken and less 
successfully completed. These are all of the 
12, 



criticisms I feel called upon to meet. 

With regard to the proper prices of chairs, 
sofas, desks and bootblack stands, I am unin- 
formed. In two instances juries have found 
that some of them cost too much, and it is 
only fair to assume that the juries examined 
the matter carefully and reached a correct con- 
clusion, just as it ought to have been assumed 
that officials did their duty. The inquiry nar- 
rowed to this extent is utterly immaterial. If 
I buy a coat it is useless to prove to me that 
the tailor made a thousand per cent, upon one 
of the buttons when I know that I only paid 
market price for the coat. The only pertinent 
inquiry in this respect is whether or not the 
whole thing was secured at a reasonable price. 
Upon the mural art painting, amounting to 
$207,877.50, the contractor made no profit 
whatever. Assuming a reasonable profit to 
have been twenty per cent., that sum would 
about offset all the profits shown to have been 
secured by the contractor in both of the cases 
tried. 

When the prosecutions were determined 
upon, there was but one sensible course for the 
defendants to pursue and that was for each 
of them to go into Court, tell every fact within 
his knowledge concerning the matter, and in- 
sist upon the contractors showing exactly what 
74 



^ ; 

I 

i 

Q ; 



oo 



oo 



O'O 



O 



-5 






^^ 


t-.P 










•o 




:$ 


"o 


o 




O 


O 


QQ 










c 




u; 


n 






c 


60 




X 


Q 


> 


LU 


-n 


>, 




z 


c 


ij 


X 


ni 


^ 




UJ 


Q 










>i 


o 




LU 


(b 


a. 




2 


c 






o 


LU 






u 



w 






o 



' M » 2 * u S 



0"6Ci 









H - = s« 



1 sll 



SSI' 






,sS«i 



5 ^ -t £ 






Sols "^ 



SifOj 



profit they made, whether large or small, and 
what became of every cent of the moneys, 
whether in their coffers, or if paid to others, 
then to whom the payment was made. Had 
this course been followed the outcome of the 
prosecutions would have been ridiculous, and 
the effort to injure the reputation of the 
State and her officials been abortive. The 
prosecutors, however, had much to gain and 
nothing at stake, and the defendants had 
much to lose, station, money, reputation and 
even reason and life. It is no wonder that 
in the face of the clamor the defendants 
failed to think correctly and ran every which 
way for shelter. Unfortunately the trials be- 
came not an inquiry to ascertain the truth 
but a struggle to secure tactical advantage. 
In such a struggle the defendants were badly 
handicapped and almost helpless. The cards 
had been stacked against them. The news- 
papers had seen to it that the juries were 
packed, by telling them for months before 
they were sworn what conclusion they must 
reach. Nothing gives a greater sense of ab- 
surdity than to read in the testimony the 
repeated admonition of the Judge to the jury 
before him to be careful not to read a news- 
paper when both were well aware that this had 
been their daily mental pabulum since the 
75 



building had been erected. We make a great 
to-do when some artisan out of a job imper- 
sonates his busy friend on a jury, which does 
little or no harm, and we tolerate the whole- 
sale packing of juries and perversion of 
justice in trials by the press without a murmur. 
The immense power of the State was thrown 
into the scale against the defendants. Not only 
were $95,981.16 expended upon the investi- 
gation, but the Act of February 11, 1909, 
appropriated $40,000.00 to the Attorney Gen- 
eral "to cover deficiencies" in his department, 
and $107,961.41 were expended for counsel 
fees and costs. The Attorney General did not 
trust these cases to the District Attorney of the 
county, who is the officer elected by the people 
to conduct prosecutions, but appeared for the 
prosecution in person. No doubt he was 
within his legal authority in so doing but 
when he did it the act had much more than 
the ordinary significance. Generally it is the 
province of the Attorney General to protect 
officials who are attacked for something done 
in the performance of their duties. Huston 
is even now in the employment of the State 
and in charge of the erection of the Barnard 
statues and the Abbey paintings under his 
contract. When, then, the Attorney General 
appeared he took the responsibility of saying 
76 



that the Governor of the Commonwealth and 
yon, the people, asked for conviction. There 
is still more behind. Yon will remember that 
the Commonwealth filed bills in eqnity suits 
claiming money from these defendants and 
answers were made denying the claim. Sup- 
pose one of you should have a dispute in 
Court over monej's and you should be con- 
fronted with a criminal charge, and you found 
your opponent conducting the prosecution, 
what hope would you have of getting justice? 
It makes no difference in principle that one of 
these parties was the Commonwealth and not 
an individual. The point is that the power to 
guide the trial was given to one of the in- 
terested parties. The Commonwealth was put 
in this unfortunate and indefensible position 
that having money to gain by the conviction 
of the defendants, she assumed and was per- 
mitted to assume control of their prosecution. 
Even the virtues of the defendants counted 
against them, as when Snyder's insistence 
upon the Quantities plans, which definitely 
fixed the location of each piece of furniture, 
resulted in their being used to aid in his con- 
viction. If the defendants had taken moneys 
and shared them with the politicians, they 
would perhaps have had friends wliose selfish 



interests alone would have led to support, but 
they were abandoned to their fate. Both po- 
litical parties sought to make capital out of the 
situation — the Democrats through Berry, and 
the Republicans, intrenched in control, through 
investigations and prosecutions. The Senator 
from Dauphin county was retained as addi- 
tional counsel for the prosecution. Since the 
record shows that he made no argument and 
asked no question of the witnesses, his pro- 
portion of the fees must have been earned by 
other service. 

There were commenced thirty cases of con- 
spiracy and seven of false pretence. The pur- 
pose of this subdivision was to overwhelm the 
defendants with a multiplicity of suits, the 
meeting of which would exhaust their re- 
sources. If one jury should perchance acquit, 
they could be brought up again upon another 
charge growing out of the same transaction 
until finally success should be attained. This 
plan had another and great advantage. It 
enabled the prosecution to pick out for trial 
anything they found to be faulty and eliminate 
all of the good work which might much more 
than compensate. Thus no jury was permit- 
ted to hear that Sanderson made nothing on 
the Abbey contract. It is as though you had 
sold a cart load of potatoes and the purchaser 



hunting out one that was rotten should charge 
you with dishonesty while he disposed of the 
rest. If a conspiracy existed it was a combina- 
tion between the officials, the architect and the 
contractors to cheat the State in the building 
and equipment of the Capitol, and this was the 
theory of the prosecution as shown not only 
by statements but by the indictments. There 
were not thirty little conspiracies, and the 
prosecution ought not to have been permitted 
to gain advantage by such oppression. Both 
the Constitution of the United States and the 
Constitution of Pennsylvania provide: "No 
person shall for the same offence be twice put 
in jeopardy of life or limb." Huston was 
acquitted of one of these subdivisions of a 
conspiracy. He was tried again for another 
and convicted. Amid this juggling with an 
alleged crime what became of the constitutional 
provision ? 

In thirty-two of the thirty-seven cases the 
prosecution entered pleas of "nolle prosequi" 
and abandoned the charges. The case of 
Frank Irvine is especially pathetic. He was 
a mere clerk in one of the departments. 
While I was Governor the bills would come 
before me for approval, often hundreds in a 
day. They came certified by tlie proper offi- 
cial. I formed the habit of occasionally select- 
79 



ing one at random and examining the details. 
On one occasion a bill came for Capitol work 
and I sent Irvine to make the measurements 
which he reported. The poor fellow did not 
dare to disobey. It might have cost him his 
position to offend his superior. The Audit 
Company of New York found his name on the 
paper and the Commonwealth had him ar- 
rested. Brooding over an accusation which 
seemed to him unjust and which he had no 
means of meeting he became insane, and was 
sent to an asylum, where I believe he is still 
confined. Then the prosecution went into 
Court and admitting that they had no evidence 
against him abandoned the case. 

Two of the cases, being those against 
Charles G. Wetter, the partner of Payne, con- 
tractor for the Capitol, were abandoned upon 
the payment by him of $14,000.00. Thirty- 
two of the cases were abandoned upon the 
payment to the Commonwealth of the sum of 
$1,100,000.00. Deducting the $95,981.16 paid 
for the investigation, the $107,961.41 for 
lawyers' fees and expenses and the $40,000.00 
appropriated to the Attorney General for de- 
ficiencies, if there were no other expenses of 
which we are uninformed, the net sum received 
by the State was $870,057.43. It had been 
better sunk in the sea. The course pursued 
80 



is simply morally indefensible. If the defend- 
ants were gxiilty of crime then they ought to 
have been convicted and punished. If they 
owed to the State six millions of dollars as 
alleged in the bills in equity filed, these sums 
ought to have been recovered. It has been 
said in an effort at palliation that the payment 
of $1,114,000.00 was a confession by the 
defendants. If the giving up of that sum was 
a confession by the defendants then much more 
was the giving up of five times that amount 
a confession by the prosecutors. Where the 
money came from is a hidden mystery. Ex- 
tortion from the fears of widows and orphans, 
from the dread of further publicity and prose- 
cution, from the timidity of corporations who 
might perchance lose their substance, it may 
have been. They had seen that neither the 
long and meritorious service of Snyder, nor 
his reputation among his fellow men, had been 
enough to protect him in the Courts of the 
land and they might well be in fear. But 
confession it could not be for the reason that 
Sanderson, Payne and Mathues were in their 
graves and beyond confession. When a 
woman or a man has brought a charge of 
crime, and for money then offers to withdraw 
it and have a "nolle prosequi" entered, she 
or he is properly discredited and disbelieved. 
81 



The deed is no better when done by a State. 
When the Attorney General settled those 
prosecutions for money, and went into Court 
and said officially upon the record that they 
had been improvidently brought, he dragged 
the Commonwealth down to the ethical plane 
of the blackmailer. Proud of the State in 
which my people have lived for two centuries 
and a quarter, and of which I have been the 
Governor, when a man from New York or 
Chicago, into whose ears have been poured 
false, treacherous and defamatory tales, 
points with derision to the Capitol, I stand 
erect and confute him with facts of which he 
has never heard. But when a solemn decree 
is entered by the Court of Dauphin County 
dismissing a charge of crime against the State 
for a consideration, what recourse is there save 
silence? Thirty-four of the thirty-seven cases 
were disposed of after the manner above nar- 
rated. In another case Cassel, Huston, Shu- 
maker, Snyder and Mathues were all acquitted 
and the jury found that the costs should be 
paid by the prosecutor, which means that in 
their judgment the suit ought never to have 
been commenced. In only two of the thirty- 
seven cases did the prosecutors succeed. I 
have read with the utmost care the 1403 
printed pages of testimony in the one case 
82 



and the 962 pages in the other, and the one 
immense, overpowering and overwhehning 
fact that appears in this testimony is that 
there is not a word of evidence anywhere 
that either of the officials received a dollar 
from the contractors, and there was not the 
slightest attempt to offer such evidence. The 
hurricane of graft which blew around the 
editorial chambers was not even a zephyr in 
the Court room. Mr. Carson, the Investiga- 
tion Commission and the Court all alike failed 
to find any trace of its existence. I have a 
copy of the evidence bound and shall present 
the volume to one of our libraries so that it 
may be seen hereafter upon what kind of tes- 
timony men in our day were imprisoned. You 
will probably ask me, if this be correct, how 
did it happen that they were convicted. Evi- 
dence was given that certain articles cost too 
much, that certain measurements were incor- 
rect, that certain charges which ought to have 
been made under one item of the schedule 
were made under another, and from such facts 
the jury were left to guess at, to infer the 
guilt. You may at various times have paid 
too much for a ton of coal and it may even 
have been short in weight, but I take it you 
never understood that you were in consequence 
guilty of a crime. 

83 



I wish to be entirely respectful to the learned 
Judge before whom the case of Snyder was 
tried, and I entertain for him personal and 
professional regard, but there are some feat- 
ures of its conduct to which reference must 
be made. The very foundation stone of 
English and American criminal law is that 
the defendant is presumed to be innocent. 
He who asserts that his fellow has committed 
a crime must prove it. The presumption 
in favor of innocence must be overcome by 
proof. There are some Judges who take 
care that no case be tried before them, not 
even that of the most hardened offender, 
without the jury being made to understand 
this attitude of the law. There never was a 
case tried where it was more important that 
this principle should be explained and empha- 
sized than in that of Snyder. He came into 
Court condemned by newspaper trial and re- 
quired to disprove a conclusion reached in 
advance. Every juror knew that should 
Snyder be acquitted he, too, would be attacked, 
recklessly accused of having been bribed, his 
face put in the morning's papers, and if ever 
any of his second cousins had killed a sheep 
or begotten a bastard, the fact would be printed 
over the land. 

Never before in the history of jurisprudence 
84 



had this kind of pressure been equalled. In 
the very midst of the trial, one of the Counsel 
for the prosecution had two interviews with a 
member of the jury in his office, an arrest re- 
sulted and five newspapers proclaimed the fact 
saying among other things that sleuths had 
followed the juror for days and that four other 
arrests were to follow. Then when the atten- 
tion of the Court was called to the matter by 
the defence, the prosecution admitted that a 
mistake had been made, that the man arrested 
had been discharged, and that no juror was 
suspected (Testimony, page 1091). Never- 
theless the Judge did not even refer in his 
charge to the fundamental principle of the law 
that the defendant was presumed to be inno- 
cent. 

There is another wise legal provision 
founded upon experience and never anywhere 
disputed. Public officials in the performance 
of their work are presumed to have been 
faithful to their duties. Had the jury been 
informed that this is the universal law always 
invoked it might have saved Snyder. The 
charge of the Judge was silent upon the sub- 
ject. 

An experience of nearly fourteen years on 
the bench leads me to say that in the trial of 
causes, which are disputed and supported by 
85 



testimony, there are always certain facts dis- 
closed which, when read in their proper rela- 
tion, point inevitably to the truth of the con- 
troversy. This case is no exception. I shall 
now go over with you a series of events occur- 
ring in this trial which illustrate what I mean 
and the deductions from which are unanswer- 
able and conclusive. No analytical and 
trained mind can escape their significance. 

In his opening address to the jury in the 
trial of Huston, his counsel, the Hon. George 
S. Graham, said : 

"We will show you that our attitude 
has always been the same and that when 
this matter first came up before even the 
first case was tried (Snyder's) we went 
to the Attorney General of the Common- 
wealth of Pennsylvania and his dis- 
tinguished associates who sit at this table 
and told them the stors^ of that letter and 
that it was a lie, at a time zvhen under 
the promise extended to us Huston had 
no expectation of ever being tried for this 
offence." (Testimony, page 484). 
If this statement of Mr. Graham be correct 
the Attorney General made a bargain, under 
the terms of which Huston was not to be 
prosecuted, and he failed to keep his compact. 
If Mr. Graham be not correct, nevertheless it 
86 



is certain that some such arrangement either 
avowed or tacit was made. In the Snyder case 
Mr. Graham on behalf of Huston asked for 
a severance, and much to the surprise of all 
who watched the scene the prosecution as- 
sented to the proposition. This was followed 
by the appearance of Stanford B. Lewis, the 
man of afifairs for Huston, who had charge 
for him at the Capitol and was in a sense a 
partner, as a witness for the prosecution. 
Incidentally you will observe that since Huston 
was the central figure in all of the Capitol 
transactions the prosecution never would have 
assented to his escape save from a knowledge 
that the evidence in their hands did not prove 
their case. It makes no difference whether or 
not the statement of Mr. Graham accurately 
narrates what occurred. Huston and Lewis, 
who was likewise indicted, believed that if 
they helped the prosecution they would avoid 
the trials which threatened them. The con- 
sideration given for the testimony of Lewis 
was either promise or hope. He took the 
stand for the prosecution. He assumed re- 
sponsibility for the preparation of the letter 
from Huston to Carson, he came into collision 
with both Carson and myself, and he testified 
that Sanderson once said "he had to put up 
a big wad for other people." These state- 
87 



ments shovr his willingness and eagerness to 
earn his reward. He never Avas tried. We 
may feel sure that we know whatever he and 
Huston were able to tell. He did not pro- 
duce a letter, or a check, or a memorandum, 
or a paper of any kind which disclosed a con- 
spiracy, nor in the hundred pages or so of his 
testimony did he give any fact more serious 
than the uncertain and vague statement hereto- 
fore attributed to Sanderson. It is plain then 
that Huston knew of the existence of no con- 
spiracy and since he did not know of it there 
could have been no conspiracy. 

When the Snyder case went to the Supreme 
Court this was the result: "A majority of the 
Court are of the opinion that the judgment 
appealed from should be affirmed on the 
opinion of the Superior Court." It was 
whispered among the bar that three of the 
Justices were in favor of sustaining the con- 
viction, that three of them were of the opinion 
that there was no evidence whatever of a con- 
spiracy, and that the seventh concluded that 
the charge of the Court below was inadequate, 
but that since counsel for the defendants did 
not ask for fuller instructions the judgment 
ought to be afiirmed. Counsel were weary, 
principles had been forgotten, and therefore 
Snyder properly suffered. Certain it is that 
88 



ihe minority of the Court were decided in their 
views or an opinion would have been written 
in this the most important case that ever 
came before them, involving the liberty of men 
of high standing in the community and the 
reputation of the Commonwealth. 

In the other case the conviction of Huston 
was secured with painful difficulty. He had 
already been acquitted upon one of the sub- 
divisions of the supposed conspiracy and should 
he be again acquitted it would make the pun- 
ishment of Snyder an absurdity. After the 
trial the prosecution secured affidavits of eleven 
of the jurymen detailing what occurred during 
their deliberations. According to one of these 
affidavits, only four of the twelve, according 
to ten of the affidavits only five of the twelve, 
voted in favor of conviction of conspiracy. 

Evidently the jury then made a compromise 
because they brought into Court this verdict : 
"We find the defendant guilty of defraud- 
ing the Commonwealth." The indictment did 
not charge him with defrauding, but with con- 
spiracy. This conversation then ensued : 
"The Court : Gentlemen, do you mean 
by this that you find the defendant guilty 
of the conspiracy charged in the indict- 
ment? 

The Foreman : No, sir. 
89 



The Court: You must determine. 
The question for you to determine is 
whether he is guilty of the conspiracy 
charged in the indictment. You mean by 
this, you find him guilty of the charge 
contained in this indictment? 

The Foreman : It is changed, don't 
you see? 

The Court : You say the defendant 
is guilty of defrauding the Common- 
wealth. We ask you whether you mean 
by that whether you find him guilty of 
the charge contained in this indictment. 
Is that what you mean? 

The Foreman: We let the conspir- 
acy off, we agreed to let the conspiracy 
off. 

The Court : The question to deter- 
mine is whether he was guilty of the con- 
spiracy. 

The Foreman: That is what we 
would not agree. 

The Court : Have you considered 
that? 

The Foreman : Yes, sir, and we 
agreed that there was no conspiracy; we 
have agreed on that." 

It would appear as though the Court had 
pushed the inquiry to the end and secured a 
90 



definite statement by the foreman of the find- 
ing of the jury with respect to the crime 
charged. A jury cannot all talk at once. The 
foreman is their spokesman. If he states the 
finding inaccurately any one of the jury may 
object and counsel have the right to have the 
name of each juryman called so that he may 
answer. Neither event occurred and the fore- 
man had stated that the jury agreed that there 
was no conspiracy. It will be further observed 
that the Judge in pressing these queries re- 
peated three times in almost the same words 
this thought : "The question to determine is 
whether he was guilty of the conspiracy." 
That was not the question they were to de- 
termine. There was another alternative. The 
defendant might perchance have been innocent. 
This possibility does not appear to have been 
in the mind of the Court. The newspaper 
presumption even in Court overpowered the 
legal presumption. The situation shows how 
important it is, if we are to maintain our sys- 
tem of government and law, that some means 
should be found to prevent the influence upon 
trials of irresponsible publication. The Court 
then continued : 

"The question for you to determine is 
whether the defendant is guilty of the 
conspiracy charged in the indictment, 
91 



being party to the conspiracy charged in 
the indictment to defraud the Common- 
wealth. That is what you mean?" 
You will again observe that only an inter- 
rogation point, an intonation of a voice which 
can no longer be heard, saved this from being 
an absolute finding by the Court against the 
defendant. 

"The Foreman : They all agreed. 
That is the only way they would agree. 
The Court : We will have to send 
you back and you will ha\'e to determine 
the question before you. This indict- 
ment charges the defendant with having 
conspired vrith the other persons named 
in the indictment with the conspiracy to 
cheat and defraud the State by means of 
the false bill set forth therein. That is 
the question you are called upon and you 
are sworn to determine. If you have not 
considered that or reached a determina- 
tion upon that you may retire and con- 
sider that question. The charge is that 
of conspiracy, with having acted in con- 
cert with the other persons named in the 
indictment to cheat and defraud the 
Commonwealth in the manner set forth 
pursuant to an understanding between 
him and the others. 

92 



Mr. Graham : If they are not guilty 
of the conspiracy they are not guilty of 
anything. 

The Court : If he is not guilty of the 
conspiracy, if he is not guilty of the 
charge in the indictment, then you say so 
by your verdict. If he is guilty, if you 
are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt 
that he is guilty of conspiring with the 
others to cheat and defraud the Common- 
wealth by means of the false bill set forth 
therein, you say so by your verdict. 
Suppose you retire and consider that. 
You understand that the charge is that 
the defendant passed this bill, that he 
passed this bill set forth in the indictment, 
knowing that it was false, with intent to 
cheat and defraud the Commonwealth and 
did so pursuant to an existing understand- 
ing between him and the other persons 
named in the indictment who also ap- 
proved and certified and caused the bill 
to be paid." 
The jury retired to their room, yielded, and 

brought in a verdict of guilty as indicted. 

The Supreme Court affirmed this judgment, 

likewise without an opinion, and by a divided 

Court. 

In his closing address to the jury in the 
93 



Huston case, the senior counsel for the prose- 
cution said : "Every guardian selected by the 
law to protect the Commonwealth was faith- 
less to his trust." This language accurately 
expresses the theory of these prosecutions 
that all of the men whom you elect to respon- 
sible office are given to iniquity and proper to 
be condemned. The theory is false, conceived 
in mental narrowness and obliquity, and is 
contrary to human nature, and contradicted by 
all human experience. 

In the evidence in the case of Snyder 
(page 851) appears this letter, written by him 
to Sanderson, July 10, 1905 : 

"Replying to your request as to whether 
advances will be made on goods which 
have been partly completed or wholly 
completed and not yet delivered into the 
possession of the State, I desire to say 
what I have repeatedly said to you here- 
tofore, that no advanced payment either 
wholly on in part will be made on account 
of your contract of June, 1904, designated 
as special furniture, carpet, fittings and 
decorations schedule at the new Capitol 
in Harrisburg, Pa. No payment will be 
made on account of the contract until the 
goods are delivered and in possession of 
the State, and then only upon goods and 

94 



items under the special schedule, of which 
you were the successful bidder and for 
which the contract was awarded to you 
by the Board of Public Grounds and 
Buildings in June, 1904. Before any 
payment is made, even after delivery of 
the goods into the possession of the State, 
the architect must certify by certificate 
designating the item in the special 
schedule under which these goods were 
made, and certify further the amount you 
are entitled to receive, and that the goods 
had been made according to plans and 
specifications and at the price you were 
awarded the contract. The Superintend- 
ent of Public Grounds and Buildings 
must further certify that the goods had 
been delivered and are in the possession 
of the State. And your bills must be 
specially itemized and show in what 
rooms these goods are placed, and the 
correctness of your itemized bills must 
also be certified to by the Superintendent 
of Public Grounds and Buildings. And 
I wish further to say that a warrant will 
not be drawn for the payment of any 
item, part or parts, cither in whole or in 
part, unless it was awarded you under 
)'Our contract of June, 1904, and that it 
95 



has been made according to the plans ap- 
proved by the Board of Pubhc Grounds 
and Buildings. Any deviation will be 
considered a just cause to withhold a war- 
rant until the bill has been corrected and 
properly certified as hereinbefore stated.'' 
In any ordinary case where the jury were 
permitted to form their own conclusions from 
the testimony offered, this letter in itself would 
have resulted in the acquittal of Snyder. 
Written to the contractor at the outset, at a 
time when no one knew how much money 
would be expended, it is entirely inconsistent 
with the thought of the existence of a con- 
spiracy. 

The same counsel for the prosecution de- 
scribed Huston as a man "endowed with 
genius to coin forms from leaf and star and 
cloud, entrusted with the fame of his State, 
respected by all who knew him," and then 
declared that "he had received his meed of 
ill gotten gain without what seemed to be 
the grime and the crime and the dirt of 
the hands that thrust it upon him." He was, 
therefore, at the same time both an angel 
of light and an imp of darkness. The char- 
acter is too complex to be accepted as prob- 
able. The artist has made his contrasts too 
bold and glaring to be natural, and we m^ay 
96 



rest assured that he has handled his brush 
too carelessly to be accurate. For one part 
of the statement the proof is the Capitol 
standing on the banks of the Susquehanna, 
where all the world may see, but the expendi- 
ture of over two hundred thousand dollars 
failed to result in the discovery of any trace 
of "ill gotten gain." The lack of proof was 
supplied by the vehemence of the editor in his 
office and of the advocate in the court room. 

I have already called your attention to the 
report of the Investigation Commission upon 
the information secured by them that "at no 
point did it show or appear to show that any 
of the moneys paid by the State to its contrac- 
tors in this connection had been directly con- 
verted to the credit or use of any of the State 
officials." In the trial of Snyder the Court 
found as follows : 

"The uncontradicted evidence in the 
case and the admissio?i of the Covitnon- 
ivealth is that every piece of furniture 
charged, billed and paid for was delivered 
to and received by the State from San- 
derson, one of the defendants." And 
again : 

"The uncontradicted evidence in the 
case and the admission of the Common- 
zvealth is that all the furniture and every 
97 



article charged, billed and paid for was of 
the quality which Sanderson, one of the 
defendants, was required and had con- 
tracted to furnish." 

Never before in the history of the world, 
so far as I know, were criminals imprisoned, 
not even William Penn and Robert Morris, 
who were likewise sent to jail by the foolish 
of their day, with such astounding certificates 
on record of their integrity and of their 
efficiency. 

I have now told you the story of the dese- 
cration of the Capitol and have given you my 
reasons for the belief that it has been an ex- 
hibition of egregious folly, sordidness and 
wickedness. No doubt I should have been 
more comfortable if I had gone along to the 
end of my life leaving this wrong for the future 
to redress, but I have endeavored through- 
out my career hitherto never to flinch from 
what I conceived to be the performance of a 
duty and I do not propose to begin in a mat- 
ter of such moment in which I have been con- 
cerned. It is due to Huston, Snyder and 
Shumaker that I should bear my testimony to 
the merits of their achievement. It is due to 
the Commonwealth that some one, with a sem- 
blance of authority and the power of speech, 
should raise his voice in protest against the 
98 



harm done to her and in answer to the re- 
proach which has been cast upon her and 
which she httle deserves. The hypocrisy 
which claims praise for the Capitol, for the ef- 
fectiveness of that which is useful, the beauty 
of that which is ornamental, the paintings of 
Abbey and Violet Oakley, the tile floor of 
Mercer and the statuary of Barnard, and gives 
no credit to Huston who secured them all for 
us, whose genius designed and whose energy 
completed the work, is a disgusting thing, to 
be held aloft for condemnation. 

The results of the investigation and the 
trials, imperfect at every step as I have shown 
them to be, have been both sad and baneful. 
The reputation of Peimsylvania through the 
erection of a public building massive and or- 
nate, with such promptness and skill and 
within the revenues, would have been strength- 
ened over the world if a perverse stupidity had 
not intervened to prevent. Hereafter what of- 
ficial will dare to undertake any important task 
for the welfare of the State, with the knowledge 
of the fate which befell Snyder confronting 
him? What architect of reputation will risk 
its loss in your service ? What contractor will 
not want compensation for his work and also 
for the danger he runs of losing his payments 
and being accused of crime by some future 
99 



Berry looking for office and encouraged Ijy 
this example? Edwin S. Stuart, genial, good 
hearted and worthy, had in mind one import- 
ant work with which he hoped to signalize his 
administration. On the stump and in many 
public addresses he urged the construction of 
a great highway to span the State from Phila- 
delphia to Pittsburgh. In deference to his 
opinion and his wishes the Senate and House 
passed a bill providing for its construction. 
He vetoed the bill. He did not do it for the 
lack of money. If a Capitol could be con- 
structed from income so could a road. He 
found over eleven millions of dollars in the 
treasury left by his predecessor. It was be- 
cause he thought it wiser and safer for him- 
self and those around him not to undertake 
what he believed to be for the benefit of the 
State. After the route should be selected 
there would be many towns through which the 
road could not pass, after the contracts should 
be awarded there would be many contractors 
whose bids were not accepted, and all over 
the State there would be ambitious and insin- 
cere politicians ready to take advantage of the 
situation. He saw before his eyes and learned 
from his own legal adviser the kind of re- 
ward which had been meted out to men who 
accomplished important tasks in aid of the 

100 



public, and he declined to support his own 
proposition. For the next hundred years Penn- 
sylvania will reap the crop which has been, 
sown for her and will pay with substantial 
losses for the indignities which have been 
heaped upon the officials you elected to your 
highest offices. One such loss irreparable in 
its character she has already suffered. Edwin 
A. Abbey was one of the contractors for the 
decoration of the Capitol. Born in Philadel- 
phia, he had attained world-wide reputation 
for his wondrous skill in art. When employed 
by the architect he expressed his intention of 
doing the most important work of his life upon 
the Capitol of his native State. Then came 
the scandal, bruited in London as elsewhere, 
with its demoralizing results, with its uncer- 
tainty as to whether he would ever be paid for 
his labors, and his activities temporarily ceased. 
Now he is dead, with his task but half com- 
pleted, and Pennsylvania has lost forever the 
treasures themselves and the opportunity of 
signalizing the genius of one of her sons. 
And consider the wickedness and cruelty which 
were a part of this degradation. Sander- 
son, Mathues and Payne were driven to their 
graves and Irvine to an insane asylum. A 
fiendish malice gloating over their misery 
has suggested that they died and became in- 



sane because of a wrong they knew they 
had done. In the days of our barbarous fore- 
fathers, when the Hghtning struck and con- 
sumed the hut and meager possessions of some 
peasant, they assumed that he had committed 
a crime and that the Lord was angry with him. 
The leper lost his reputation as well as his 
life. We are not yet very far removed from 
barbarism. Who ever knew a thief to die of 
remorse? Men perish because the burdens 
laid upon their shoulders and their brains are 
too heavy for them to bear, and the imagina- 
tion can conceive of no load more grievous 
and more likely to crush humanity to the 
earth than the consciousness of having labored 
faithfully and attained success only to be fol- 
lowed by persecution and ingratitude. John 
Fitch, after inventing the steamboat and run- 
ning it for three months upon the Delaware 
before a people too dull to comprehend, went 
out to Kentucky and hanged himself. 

Huston, Snyder and Shumaker, knowing 
the good they endeavored to do and accom- 
plished, need have no sense of shame and do 
not require your sympathy. The shame is on 
those who misused the power of the Common- 
wealth. Let those who fanned and fostered 
the scandal take the responsibility. When in 
future ages the curious delver turns from the 



beauties of the Capitol to dig among the for- 
gotten records of these trials it will be with 
strange wonderment that such events could 
have happened in the twentieth century, and 
to write the names of these persecutors along- 
side of those of the Council who clamored for 
the execution of John Huss and of those 
Judges who burned Joan of Arc in the market 
place of Rouen. 

It is well that manners soften as the world 
grows old. France in the wild days of her 
revolution cut off the head of Roget de Lisle, 
who had written for her that most inspiring 
of lyrics, La Marseillaise. We have treated 
the architect who created and adorned the 
Capitol for us in a milder and more gentle 
fashion. We have only robbed him of his 
earnings, blackened his fame and sent him to 
prison to meditate upon the vicissitudes of for- 
tune and the rewards of public service. 

A poet has written that time turns the old 
days to derision. The frettings and contro- 
versies which agitate the souls of men disap- 
pear with the morrow. In the lapse of a few 
summers the dreariest bank of cinder and ashes 
becomes clothed with verdure and fragrant 
with flowers. The blackest of clouds bear 
with them the waters that give life to vegeta- 
tion. It is a comfort to know that there are but 
103 



few of the efforts of men, even those that orig- 
inate in their baser instincts and are conceived 
in iniquity, that do not in the end result in 
some benefit. The winds that blew for a 
time with such threat and fury have sunk into 
silence in the far off wild woods of Broceliande. 
It may w^ell be that the Capitol on the banks 
of the Susquehanna, through the coming cen- 
turies, meeting the needs of the Common- 
wealth, and gratifying the pride of her people, 
will be the more appreciated because of the 
fierceness with which it has been assailed, and 
that its granite walls will glisten in the sun- 
light of the future more brightly because of 
the murk and fog which followed its con- 
struction. 



<; 



<Xhv LO. 




104 



II VI 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 







1 h 


11 1 




1 ', 


11 111 


i 1 



012 607 214 4 Q 



